When the police dispatcher realized that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.

It was a mistake for Zimmerman to leave his car in the first place. But while the audio may not decisively prove that Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the dispatcher asked him to, it is very strong evidence that he did, especially when coupled with his testimony to police the night of the incident. But that isn’t even the point.

The point is this: With no witnesses stating that Zimmerman defied the dispatcher’s wishes and continued following Martin and no evidence to suggest he did, how did the idea that he pursued Martin after the dispatcher told him not to become a universally recognized, undisputed fact?

My question: has something developed in the meantime that undercuts this? Something that might have been missed by someone like me, who is preoccupied these days with work and family life?

It’s an honest question. How do we know Zimmerman followed Martin after the dispatcher’s warning?

462 Responses to “Zimmerman Bleg/Questioning Assumptions”

We don’t know. The problem is that the liberal media has spun so many speculations as fact. We where bombarded with Zimmerman was racist, not injured,WHITE when much later we learn that none of those claims were true. I don’t know all the facts in this case to proclaim innocence or guilt but with the level of dishonesty displayed by the press and Sharpton,Jackson and other liberal forces I’m inclined to believe Mr. Zimmerman.

as well as the map and routes. Zimmerman said “OK” to the “we don’t need you to do that”. It seems that Martin started running at 2:08. Zimmerman ended the call at 4:12 with the confrontation obviously occurring after that.

If you view the map, Martin would have been inside the townhome he was staying before the 911 call ended. Add another minute or so and even ths St Petersburg community members using walkers would have gotten inside the townhome and even called 911 as well.

What is needed is a uniform time line using the telephone company records of all the 911 calls and Martin’s call to his girlfriend.

Aside: Anyone think a 17 year old former football player couldn’t out distance a much shorter 28 year old?

As to the question presented: The media was in the tank for racial hatred. The first I read about the case and saw that cute 12-year old +/- photo compared to a retouched photo of the “thug” from some years earlier, I become skeptical of the story line. Fake but accurate. Tywanna Brawley. Then the “white”, followed by this new group called “white-hispanic”. Gee.

“how did the idea that he pursued Martin after the dispatcher told him not to become a universally recognized, undisputed fact?”

Because George Zimmerman is a racist and the narrative demands it, even if his breathing on the phone call moderated to suggest he was no longer following and actually returning to his truck as his testimony provided.

The affidavit is pretty sloppy. It is pretty basic that you are supposed to explain how it is that the affiant knows each of the facts presented, either by “I saw” or “so and so told me.” Otherwise the document is valueless in determining probable cause.

Here the affiants state that Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher’s “instructions” but they don’t explain how they know that.

I have followed this somewhat closely, but admit relying on narciso and others here for appropriate links than scouring for primary sources myself.

From what I have seen, the idea that Z continued to follow M “against the instructions of the 911 operator” is an assumption that fell in with the idea that Z was a racist who was quick to tell the 911 operator he was following a black youth, without any specific evidence to support it.

It has been stated from police/sheriff’s officials that first of all, the 911 operator did not have authority to “order” Z to do anything, second, I believe she actually said in the transcript of the recording that “you don’t have to do that” rather than “Do not do that” in regards to following him, but I could be wrong.
From the transcript I believe that Z say’s he lost sight of M, which is “more” consistent with the idea that he had stopped following him and was on his way back to the car.
The early characterization of Z was that he was quick to point out the suspect was black, which while I think would have been a reasonable thing to say, was actually prompted by a question from the 911 operator that was edited out of the conversation in the media reports. In addition, it was claimed he used a racial slur referring to the suspect as “a f-ing c**n”, which on review is probably a comment that it is “f-ing cold”, which it was a cold and rainy day for Florida.
Z was also painted as a person who was off base and a bit paranoid who substantially overused the 911 system.

When the facts came out, he had said nothing to suggest that he was a racist, his 911 calls were not always 911 calls to police and had occured over an extended period of time- judged by many anyway to be reasonable for a regular town-watch volunteer, and it was not clear that he had “continued to stalk his prey”.

Then there were reports with video (after he had been treated by EMS) supposedly discounting his story of self defense. A later version did give evidence of wounds, whether the original was tampered with to remove the evidence or the latter enhanced (which is the claim) only the video editor knows for sure. (Of course, to some degree whether a person has visible injuries or not has little bearing on a self-defense claim- though in this specific instance the claim was he was being beaten and head slammed to the ground, which one would expect some injury evident).

There is a witness who has been quoted as saying he/she saw Z on the ground with M on top as consistent with Z’s story. Apparently this person did not see the claimed first blow by M that sent Z to the ground.

Initial press reports also portrayed M as a “little angel” to go along with the story of “racist white stalks and murders innocent black child because he was wearing a hoodie”, but it is clear that M was no angel, though he had no history of violence either, that I can recall.

I am happy to have any of that challenged or corrected with appropriate reference.

There is no published account relating any interview or forensics to support a contention that Zimmerman continued a pursuit. The published call is consistent with any story of zimmerman’s that he had discontinued pursuit; some would say (and I do) that the recording supports him stopping looking for Trayvon with an “ok” to the dispatcher. He doesn’t know where the kid is and therefore CANNOT follow him, unless at some point after the call he catches sight again and changes his direction. But the call tends to support he is not looking for the kid anymore.

I also am confused by anyone referring to the dispatcher’s remarks about pursuit as a “lawful order” of law enforcement. The phrasing is in the form closer to mere suggestion “you don’t HAVE to do that” not even “we prefer you to stop” which would still only be suggestion. The implication is that the dispatcher does not think it necessary or prudent for him to keep looking. There is nothing NOTHING to show Zimmerman defying any order or command.

The only contradiction is from Trayvon’s girlfriend, and that only through reports that cannot be relied on. Through others (I believe the $$$/hearse-chasing lawyer) a confrontation of some kind happens, there is, according to this middle-man related account of the gf, some kind of arguing before Trayvon drops the call.

THe sequence of that dropped call with other events is actually not clear. It may be an early “what are you doing here” and Trayvon drops the call because he wants to get out of Zimmerman’s sight. It might be a confrontation closer to the fight and shooting.

No, that’s why the dowdified 9/11 tape, the truncated timeline of calls, to suggest paranoia, the altered police station tape, all suggest a template was being set, and now this judge has to make the determination, that Corey couldn’t or wouldn’t

The problem with Zimmerman’s claim that he didn’t follow Martin and was walking back around his car when the fight started is that the shooting happened along a sidewalk running between some houses, well away from where Zimmerman’s car was parked.

There is a sidewalk and a grassy area, so they could have fought in the grass and Martin could have hit Zimmerman’s head against the concrete, as Zimmerman claims. But unless Zimmerman was walking around looking for Martin, or they had a running fight, which no one has claimed, there’s no way that he got back there unless he was either following Martin or looking for him.

david, but was looking for him at first. He’s running, out of breath – in the call.

Even after that, Zimmerman has said that he was confronted as he was walking back, not that he made it back… and stopping looking for the kid is not the same as stopping looking for the house number, which I have been told is on the SIDE of the houses, and necessitate him walking between houses to see the numbers.

Looking for specifics of his location is not the same thing as a pursuit.

And that said, there was nothing illegal about keeping an eye out for the kid on the way back either.

We know Z had been following M for a period of time, so the fact that the altercation did not happen at the car does not prove one thing or another, IMO. As others said with more detail, perhaps a reconciliation of the timeline and a scale map could suggest what was possible in where Z might have been when he had the discussion with the dispatcher and whether the location of the incident is consistent with him heading back to his car.

All that needs to be done is find the GPS data on Z’s phone. Does that still exist in retrievable form in some data file somewhere?

Other than conflicting with Z’s story, which would be a major thing, I’m not sure of the siginificance of things even if Z had continued to follow M. As said above, it was not like Z would have been disobeying an order from law enforcement. Even if Z confronted M verbally at a reasonably close range, I think the important issue is who closed the distance between them to be within striking range. Had Z literally got in M’s face and M struck out in essentially self defense then Z is the one who initiated the conflict and is responsible for it. However, if Z was standing 4 feet away and then M closed the distance and struck, then the initial assault came from M, whether he was being “followed” or not.

That analysis is not from a lawyers point of view, but according to how daughter’s sensei has explained what is appropriately considered self-defense.

There is nothing to support the allegation that Zimmerman continued to ‘pursue’ Martin after talking to the dispatcher. In fact, I remember reading something to the effect that Zimmerman said ‘okay’ when told he didn’t need to continue following Martin.

‘pursue’ is a loaded word, it implies an intent to take some form of action upon contact with the person supposedly being pursued. ‘followed’ is a much more less inflammatory word and could very well be a more appropriate description of Zimmerman’s action.

There obviously was some kind of spacial separation between the two at the onset of the incident. There is no evidence to support an allegation that Zimmerman is responsible for the elimination of the gap… in other words, they wouldn’t have come together by accident, one of the two would have had to narrow the gap. What supports a claim that it was Zimmerman? And if it was Martin, then it appears that Martin was the initiator of the actual contact. And I believe that in all his previous 911 contacts, Zimmerman never ‘pursued’ a suspicious person to the point where there was physical contact. Seems to me that he did what he thought was the prudent thing, follow at a distance, keep the person in sight until the police show up.

Brain tease: if Martin thought he was under attack, could ‘stand your ground’ support his taking preemptive action against Zimmerman? Of course, since he’s dead, no one is bringing charges against him.

steve- as I commented above, I have been told that if someone aggressively comes into “your space”, meaning within striking range, an appropriate level of physical response would be appropriate. Of course, the least necessary force would be a simple push away while taking a step back oneself. Again, that is from the perspective of one who teaches self defense and “active conflict resolution”.

I think others have covered the point well about what the dispatcher told him — it was not a “command” of any kind.

When you consider the layout of the streets, houses, and the sidewalk that bisects the grass area which lays between the back yards of the two rows of houses, its fairly easy to see what happened.

Based on what I’ve seen and read, I think Martin took the pathway away from the street which led to the walkway between the two rows of houses. Zimmerman did not follow him along the same route, and lost sight of him. Remember its dark and raining, and Zimmerman says Martin started to run. We are not talking about a huge plot of land here — from the gate to the subdivision to the place where Martin ducked in between the two rows of houses is maybe 50 yards. If he’s 20 yards in front of Zimmerman, he’s going to be out of Zimmerman’s sight in 5-10 seconds. And that seems consistent with Zimmerman’s account in the 9-11 call.

Rather than follow behind him, Zimmerman follows the path of the street where his car is parked, going parallel to the path of the walkway, with the row of townhouses separating him from Martin. He then cuts between two sets of townhouses (4 units in each) to get to the sidewalk/walkway running through the back where he expects be able to see Martin again. Based on what has been reported by Zimmerman’s father and the family friend Mr. Oliver, Zimmerman didn’t see Martin again right away but was surprised when Martin came up on him from behind and on his left.

One thing I have concluded in looking at the layout is that when Martin got beyond Zimmerman’s line of sight, Martin stopped and waited to see where he would see Zimmerman next. I say that because if Martin had kept running — or even walking at a normal pace — he would not have been at the scene of the confrontation by the time Zimmerman got to that location. From the point where Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, and where the fatal confrontation occurred — based on the address given in the police report — is no more than 30-40 yards. If Martin was running or walking the whole time, and never stopped, he would have been way past this point by the time Zimmerman got between the two rows of houses to try and spot him again. Martin could have easily gotten back to his father’s girlfriend’s house which was only another 50 yards down the path. This is why I think Martin stopped somewhere in the dark there to watch for Zimmerman. And the girlfriend’s cell phone records are going to be important here because the attorneys will be able to estimate how much ground he could have covered while he was talking to her.

It is clear from the 9-11 tape that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin late in the call — likely when Martin took the path that led between the backyards of the two rows of townhouses. Martin then goes parallel down the street before going through the sideyard between two townhouse units, and comes to the walkway he expects to find Martin. To his right down the walkway is the father’s girlfriend’s house, to the left is the direction that Martin should have been coming from. If I’m Zimmerman, I would think that Martin would have beat me to this spot, and I would have been focused to the right, to see if I could spot him again.

ZImmerman says Martin approached him from behind on his left — if true, and if Zimmerman had focused his attention on the direction he thought Martin should have been, then that means Martin had stopped along the walkway after he got beyond Zimmerman’s sight, and waited to see if Zimmerman continued to follow him.

This would be consistent with the verbal part of the confrontation as reported by Zimmerman, where he claims Martin approached him and said “You got a problem?”, to which ZImmerman replied “No”, and Zimmerman claims Martin said in response “Well you do now” and then struck the first blow.

Patrick – when you have time, I’m interested in your opinion re the probable cause affidavit made public yesterday that supposedly supports a 2nd degree murder charge.

After 2 weeks, this is the best they could produce? I’m not saying more facts should have been included — very often you make a conscious choice to only put in as much as you need to get the charge filed, not wanting to have a bunch of information in the public arena unnecessarily.

But this affidiavit, IMO, has huge problems in terms of a lack of substance on material elements, and it has syntax problems as well as a couple of nonsensical terms.

OK, I’m trying to imagine what I would do or think if I was walking down a dark street, and some dude (NOT a cop) started following me or eyeballing me or asked me what I was doing. What would I think his motives were?

I still don’t feel like I know the details of the “pursuit” or the actual confrontation, and they matter to some extent. But just by getting out of his car, he far overstepped his neighborhood watch citizens-on-patrol mandate, and set events in motion. Had he stayed in his car, he’s free and a young man is still breathing.

Not Murder 2 based on that alone, but I’d think a pretty strong case for involuntary manslaughter.

The lack of outrage on the part of Z’s new attorney suggests to me that he knows this is a PR document put out by the State Attorney, and that her ultimate choice for disposition is far short of Murder 2.

And Zimmerman might be so truly remorseful over the course of events he wrongfully set in motion — and I think he made a series of terrible decisions (though I question whether they were criminal)– might lead him to actually want to plead guilty to manslaughter depending on the sentencing recommendation.

But, if Zimmerman believes he acted in the only fashion available to him at the moment, his defense attorney should take this case to trial. The law favors Zimmerman given Zimmerman’s version of the facts. There are no publicly identified witnesses who directly contradict his version.

The only real unknown land-mines at this point are those which might be buried in the statements he gave to the police.

Oftentimes, claims of self-defense are undermined by conflicted accounts which a defendant gives under questioning. There is a saying in law enforcement that there is only “one version of the truth.” This is why cops try to question people more than once on the same sequence of events. The inability to tell the same story consistently over time is an indication that parts of the story aren’t true, and you are having trouble keeping your lies straight.

What is needed is a uniform time line using the telephone company records of all the 911 calls and Martin’s call to his girlfriend.

The cell tower logs are guaranteed to be accurate in time, since cell phones MUST use super-accurate GPS time in order to work. This means that no matter what carrier the two people used, the time records are aligned since they both come from GPS satellites.

So what if the dispatcher told him not to follow and he decided to follow – that is not a crime. It is also not a crime if he had reasonable suspicion that Martin was up to no good and asked Martin what he was up to. It may not be what you or I would do, but we are not yet North Korea where a police dispatcher has the power to make a citizen’s actions illegal by command.

Exactly what law was broken if Zimmerman did either. If Zimmerman attacked Martin or assaulted Martin, that is a different matter.

OK, I’m trying to imagine what I would do or think if I was walking down a dark street, and some dude (NOT a cop) started following me or eyeballing me or asked me what I was doing. What would I think his motives were?

I agree that this behavior is likely to lead to conflicts sometimes. If you do this every day, eventually something bad is going to go down. If you do this every day with a gun in your waistband, eventually something really bad is going to go down.

But I’m not sure it’s a crime. And it sure isn’t murder. It is, however, the wrong way to perform and necessary and admirable task. I hope it’s not lost that George was trying to do the right thing just because it wound up a disaster. Obviously he would take this back if he could.

I was hoping to see Obama, the post racial president who went to DC on a mission to end the partisan tone and be a uniter, would use his community organizer experience to constructively offer tips for improving communities. George’s community actually needs a lot more Georges walking around and looking out for eachother. They just need to do it more carefully, and in a way that is less likely to lead to conflict.

I don’t even know for sure how much provoking George did. I hope the truth comes out.

One assumes that when this all gets sorted in a court, the answers will be obvious. And if I were Zimmerman (and presumably innocent), I would vastly prefer that to the kind of speculation and assumption that has made his current life expectancy so very short.

BarDav — I think your points are exactly where the prosecution breaks down here. They cannot establish who provoked the confrontation when they came fact to face, and the fact that Zimmerman was or was not following Martin leading up to the confrontation is not sufficient to support a conclusion that it was Zimmerman.

If you can’t establish that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation, then there is no real way to invalidate his use of deadly force in self-defense given the limited evidence about what was happening at the moment the fatal shot was fired

One of my pistols has a bright light and a laser attached to the accessory rails.

It wouldn’t take much to add a camera, microphone, and memory card to this accessory. To avoid self incrimination problems, the data could be encrypted, though I suspect if I ever needed a pistol to defend myself I would want everyone to see whatever was threatening me. The video could be activated when the other accessories were used automatically.

I’ve long thought about such a product’s utility to a person who had to defend themselves, but watching the George Zimmerman media coverage has left me wondering just how bad this would have been for George. A leak of this footage, cut and cut and cut and cut and pasted together… it would taint a jury so fast. Even if it showed George crying for help and on his back shooting to stop a beating, they could just show the frames that don’t offer that part.

It’s really getting to the point where information is completely rebuilt from the floor up. And those who didn’t offer their video footage even for that reason would be assumed guilty.

Unfortunately for Z, he made the first mistake of an innocent man: he spoke to the police without his lawyer. Now, instead of proving 2nd degree murder, they really only have to prove that he was wrong (that he lied to police) in order to taint the jury against him.

Hell, he doesn’t even have to be wrong. If they find a half drunk blind man to contradict something Z said, it hurts his credibility.

Especially if you are 100% innocent, never ever ever talk to the cops.

Don’t need to do any of that, Dustin. My crackberry had a 25 gig video/audio card. I could record my whole day, just keep it reasonably unmuffled. Your business, but the less junk you have on your gun the easier it will be in your hand when you need it.

That 90-plus percent pretty much mirrors the prevailing ideology of black America in general. 90 percent favoring any person, thing or idea that is of the left, or generally tilts left. When such a huge percentage is applicable to any group of people — when it’s as lopsided or one-sided as the 90 percentile range — generalizations become more appropriate, legitimate or realistic. Or it becomes closer to the generalization of “humans need oxygen to survive.”

The culture of a large portion of black America is very much a reflection of liberalism run amok.

As for Zimmerman following or not following Martin, it’s my sense that Zimmerman began to step away from the scene — turned away and started to move back towards his car — while Martin was interested in getting some cheap thrills for the night. Martin probably was resentful that his free-and-easy movements within a setting were being challenged by anyone, and, at the same time, wanted to play street gangsta. I bet Martin relished the idea of confronting Zimmerman with an attitude full of “who the f— do you think you are?!! Back off, mutherf—–!!”

A couple of people just now touched on the other point that I think is important – why did Z focus on this particular guy walking down the street in the first place? This, really, is the biggest bone of contention for the “walking while black” crowd, and in some ways they kinda have a point, although it’s as much “walking while young at night” or “walking while hoodied” as anything else.

Anyway, while I agree that Murder 2 is a ridiculous, politically motivated charge, I think that shooting someone due to a situation that you created without a very strong reason for doing so might rise to the level of a crime. If not, it’ll get him crushed in the civil trial that’s sure to follow – if, despite the actions and words of several folks who are adults and who should know better, he lives to see it.

If they find a half drunk blind man to contradict something Z said, it hurts his credibility.

Reports that he could be, or has been, a hot head on occasion don’t reflect well on him. And I’m not referring to situations involving his wife (or ex-wife?) or one that involved Florida enforcement agents at some bar. I’m referring to one report from a third party that described Zimmerman in a former job as a security guard (or something like that) becoming a zealot when he was dealing with some person. Of course, I’m not sure how much of that — or anything else — is pure hearsay.

This, really, is the biggest bone of contention for the “walking while black” crowd, and in some ways they kinda have a point, although it’s as much “walking while young at night” or “walking while hoodied” as anything else.

Given how much effort Trayvon into appearing to be a thug on twitter, maybe there really was more to his appearance than just a young black man in a hooded sweatshirt.

Maybe he looked as suspicious in person as he does on twitter.

I think you’re right that this is the central point of controversy for many of the hysterics. A kid who looks like the photo on CNN walking home with skittles… I wouldn’t think that was suspicious and anyone who did is a weirdo.

But there is a culture out there, and it sure isn’t limited to any race, that goes out of its way to look like this or this. 99.999% of folks who display themselves this way are not criminals. They want to look rebellious and tough because that attracts girls. But they message they are sending can make a reasonable person take note if they are behaving strangely.

RC, you should read more about what was going on in the neighborhood with break-ins and the sort of persons and methods they used in breaking in.

Z focused on the teen because he was out of place.
He wasn’t going anywhere in particular, was out in sketchy weather, looked like he was on drugs (to Z. – he looked zoned out) and wasn’t walking on the sidewalk, though it was wet. Take Z’s description at face value. He describes the reasons for reporting Trayvon as a suspicious person to the non-emergency dispatcher.

It’s known the was a stranger in the neighborhood, so Trayvon wouldn’t have been recognizable as a neighbor.

Also, you’re wrong about “a situation you created”

The proximate cause is what matters. So long as the suspicion was reasonable and no illegal action was taken by Zimmerman to report (certainly not) or to check out which way the kid went (also not unreasonable or illegal) and Zimmerman committed no battery, no threat of force, no fighting words…nothing beyond what is admitted he’s at fault for the fight.

If Trayvon physically attacked Zimmerman, and there is no sufficient provocation to justify that attack, and the fight is the reason for resort to deadly force, the only liability to Z would flow from unreasonable use of force, not the following.

Being mad that some guy is checking you out from his car, asking you what you are doing there – and madder that he follows to see where you went when you run away, is not sufficient justification to punch someone in the face.

Yea, and those are the same type of people who will observe information like the following — which has been an ongoing trend going back several decades — and proclaim “RACISM!” “Not enough daycare!” “Not enough money for teachers!!” “Cuts in welfare and health programs!!” “Lack of subsidized school lunches!” “BIGOTRY!”

Los Angeles Times, March 7, 2012

African American students, particularly males, are far more likely to be suspended or expelled from school than their peers, according to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Education.

According to the study, black students made up 18 percent of the students in the sample, but were 35 percent of the students suspended once and 39 percent of the students expelled.

dailynews.com, Larry Elder, March 8, 2012:

Public schools nationwide, according to a new Department of Education study, suspend black and Hispanic students disproportionately more than their white counterparts.

LAUSD is the worst offender, kicking out black students disproportionately more than any other big-city school district. Although blacks make up only 9 percent of LAUSD, they account for 26 percent of the suspensions.

New Jersey state troopers in the late ’90s were accused of racially profiling black drivers on the New Jersey turnpike. At the request of the U.S. Justice Department, the state ordered a study. Black drivers, it turned out, drove disproportionately faster compared with their white counterparts – and the faster the speed the more likely the person behind the wheel was black. A second study was ordered. It reached the same conclusion.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition in 1999 sued the predominantly white Decatur, Ill., school district using the “disproportionate expulsion” argument…. Jackson accused the district of racism because it expelled blacks disproportionately more when compared with other races. The problem is that data show that black kids are also more likely to be expelled in liberal places like San Francisco and Oakland where the school board members include blacks, Hispanics and Asian-Americans. The judge threw out the lawsuit.

Rc – I mean to say, if Trayvon could avoided any physical confrontation but instead, as claimed, confronted Z walking back to his car with “Do you have a problem” and then cold-cocked Z even though the only reply he got was “no” – then Trayvon caused the fight, he is the attacker – and the only liability Z would have is for unreasonable use of force to stop that attack.

Now, If Zimmerman had spotted Trayvon, and brandished a weapon or tried to physically detain him, that would be different.
I think some people believe that’s what happened, though there isn’t anything to support that conclusion.

Suppose to Trayvon’s “Do you have a problem” Zimmerman said “NO” and pulled out a gun – and Trayvon, in fear of his life cold-cocks Z to get that gun away, then of course Zimmerman created the situation that resulted in use of deadly force.

But there’s nothing to support that conclusion, except the imputation that anyone who would suspect Trayvon enough to report him and who carries a gun and who tries to see which way Trayvon ran is bent on unjustifiable use of force.

Sorry, Mr Frey, but I’m gonna cry BS on this assertion. I think you have studiously avoided blogging about this case, but to say you haven’t been following is a stretch. After your original “I’m not a racist, but” post on this issue, you have posted plenty of other stories so your dodge that you have been preoccupied with work and family life doesn’t ring true.

I would argue that you, like many “conservatives” are afraid to wade into this pool too deeply. It’s easier to say, “Hey, you guys feel free to talk amongst yourselves, but I got no stake in this” than it is to talk about the glaring truths in this case. Which, by the way, don’t have anything to do with the facts of the shooting but everything to do with the aftermath.

Until polite “conservatives” are willing to speak honestly about race issues in this country, they continue to enable the Sharptons and Jacksons.

Zimmerman’s action in looking over someone on the street who looked out of place, getting out of the car, etc… were not necessarily unreaonable – FOR A POLICE OFFICER. But he is not a police officer. From Trayvon’s point of view, he was just some dude who stopped his car to hassle him, maybe rob him… what exactly was someone in Trayvon’s situation to think were this guy’s motives?

And the libertarian soul inside me says that a person ought to be able to walk down a street without being stopped and questioned.

Jim, Patterico asked a specific question. He did not dodge the issues.

If you want to talk about race issues, go right ahead and do it. Don’t demand others do it, else they are enablers of Sharpton’s smears. Do what you need to do yourself.

You can’t expect Patterico to discuss and understand every single freaking thing. It’s very annoying seeing this kind of attack on one of the few people who actually does stand up to the worst creatures I’ve ever seen online.

Assuming that soul isn’t disingenuous, or dishonest with itself, of isn’t full of naivete, it will respond in a manner not too different from this person:

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody White and feel relieved.”
— Jesse Jackson

Yeah, Jim, speak for yourself. I don’t actually a clear idea of what you mean, about the “aftermath” that is getting short shrift in your opinion, but demanding a blogger share your blogging priorities is silly when you can blog yourself.

Florida passed the Stand Your Ground law specifically to combat your point of view.

I’m not saying that your point of view is bad or evil – it’s prevalent in many areas. I just personally disagree. Florida disagrees similarly to the point of passing a law about it, which has had various ramifications many of which are not obvious. Many of which I’m learning.

Whether or not it’s morally right:
Zimmerman can legally get out of his car.
Zimmerman can legally follow someone at a distance to keep him in eyeshot.
Zimmerman can legally speak to someone in public and ask him questions which said person doesn’t have to answer.
If threatened, Zimmerman is not required to run away. Wise or not, moral or not, right or not, time and ability to do so or not, that’s a legal question that can’t be asked.

The only place we get dicey are the critical questions. Did Zimmerman physically assault Martin first? Did he push him to begin the confrontation? Did he advance into his personal space in such an amazingly threatening nature that a reasonable person would assume conflict was joined?

I am told there is going to be a pretrial evidentiary hearing where if Zimmerman can prove self defense beyond a preponderance of the evidence, the trial should stop right there. This particular pretrial hearing was created as a result of the Stand Your Ground law.

Ann Althouse has a pretty good explanation of Florida law on Stand Your Ground and self-defense. In a nutshell, SYG is an immunity statute, meaning that if the judge believes it applies there is no trial, and also meaning that the prosecutor must DISPROVE the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt in order to win at trial.

Actually lawyers in fl are holding off on their cases re syg now waiting for the Zimmerman case. There is a thought that if the judge doesn’t throw this out but deferes to a jury, it will be defector end of syg in fl.

On the other hand, most of the strategizing I’ve heard is legal and doesn’t touch on the (very important to Zimmerman) social strategy of how to keep an acquitted Zimmerman alive and employable after this is over.

Simply having the case thrown out “on a technicality” won’t do the trick — no one wants to live OJ’s life after trial, and especially not without money.

There is also the wrongful-death suit issue, and the federal civil rights case issue, neither one of which will turn on SYG.

– Trayvon was the first person “threatened”, when a strange man stopped his car and started questioning him.

– Trayvon can legally ignore the questions, and walk or run away from the strange man.

– if being followed by a person you fell threatened by (and admittedly the information as I’ve heard it doesn’t prove or disprove that this happened as of yet), Trayvon can legally stop and confront the threat. He is not required to run away.

And Mark, Jesse’s refreshing lapse into honesty notwithstanding, you just *can’t* codify those feelings into the law or its application. Nobody ever said libetarianism would be easy.

If I were Zimmerman, I would waive the SYG hearing and seek a jury composed largely of middle-class blacks. His case is so strong that he can afford this, and an acquittal from a black jury would end this rather completely. Which has got to be what he really wants.

The “strange man” asking him what he was about
is not a threat in any sense but in particular not in a criminal sense.

If Trayvon was creeped out or felt alarm, he had a telephone at his disposal to call 911. He had options to get away, as well. So, no right to start punching, not yet.

Trayvon saw he was watched, approached, changed his mind, ran away. I’m not entirely sure at what point he was ask what he was doing there… But he didn’t have to answer. There was still no sufficient provocation for attack.

If Zimmerman is not in active pursuit, he has no legal excuse to start punching.

If Zimmerman is looking for him, he has no right to start punching unless accosted or in reasonable fear that he is about to be attacked.

If Trayvon has an opportunity to avoid violence, he does in fact have a duty to avoid it

If he APPROACHED Zimmerman (surprised him when he could have stayed hidden, by Zimmerman’s account)
and said “Do you have a problem” and Zimmerman says no and starts walking away, Trayvon is initiating confrontation, is attacking without a sufficient legal provocation, and is the only one guilty of a crime at that point.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I have heard the original phone conversations Zimmerman had with the police dispatcher, not the MSNBC edits in which it seems he is volunteering that Martin was black rather than responding to a question. I have heard three different enhancements of Zimmerman’s mumbling “f*cking coons/goons/punks.” I have heard of all the eyewitness accounts suggesting that when he was shot, Martin was on top of Zimmerman and causing a head injury that left a bloody gash, supported by the surveillance video in the police department. And still, it all comes down to what I said when the idea was first floated that Martin was the aggressor:

Remember the last thing we heard in Zimmerman’s police call: He said that Martin was running away from him. Why would Trayvon, in a new, strange environment, run away from Zimmerman and then come after him? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Also: Remember what Zimmerman said he did when he told his version of the events: When Martin asked him if he had a problem, GZ said “I reached for my cell phone.” Question: Where did he keep his cell phone, which he had just used minutes before, and where did he keep his gun? Nobody seems to have considered the possibility that the reason why Martin — one of those “a–holes that always get away” — may have beat Zimmerman bloody is because he saw that gun, either by accident, because Zimmerman was going for it, or because it was being aimed at him.

It’s been as frustrating as hell listening and watching some conservative commentators report this story because they often speak out of both sides of their mouths: They declare “We don’t know what really happened,” but in their next breath, they suggest that the only logical conclusion is that Zimmerman was standing his ground. Hannity has been the worst of all in this regard, and for once, I prefer O’Reilly’s stance that since we don’t know what happened, he’s not going to suggest that he really does. (The MSM is all-in for Martin — that’s a given.)

I eagerly await the defense’s case. I want to know what Zimmerman said to Trayvon besides “No,” which is all he’s admitted to so far. I want to hear the opinion of the Sanford detective who thought Zimmerman should have been charged. I want to hear Zimmerman explain what he thought might be going on in Trayvon’s head when he was running away from him, and what he was thinking when he continued to follow him.

Having said all of that, there is little doubt in my mind that Zimmerman will be acquitted. If jury pools are so shallow in Florida that Casey Anthony couldn’t be convicted, I believe that for the prosecution, sitting a jury that could convict Zimmerman of any crime would be like winning Mega Millions.

Sarah are you saying if Zimmerman asks Trayvon what he is doing, that’s legal… But if Trayvon ask Zimmerman what he is doing that’s a crime or assault? Or is you differentiation that in the scenario you describe only Trayvon committed physical violence?

I agree that we don’t know for sure if he continued to follow after he said “okay” to the dispatcher who told him they didn’t need him to follow the boy. However, my feeling on listening to the tape (which is different from what can be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt) is that he probably did. I say this because the dispatcher is asking him where he’ll be when the police arrive, and he says they should call him and he’ll let them know. I took that to me that, rather than staying put or knowing for sure where he’d be, he instead had it in his mind that he look for the boy.

Perhaps one way to determine this would be looking at a map and seeing where the SUV was in relation to where the fight took place. We know for a fact that Zimmerman began following Trayvon on foot, but only for a few seconds. So where did the fight take place? Further away than Zimmerman could’ve gotten in a few seconds?

If Zimmerman’s account is true and correct, and Trayvon asked him “Do you have a problem”, and Zimmerman says “no” and does nothing to provoke (no weapon, no threatening gestures, no fighting words), then Trayvon no legal justification to attack Zimmerman with a punch in the face.

One might also reasonably presume that whatever answer was given, Trayvon surprised Zimmerman with the specific intention of initiating a physical fight, as he attacked without any specific provocation except his irritation at being scoped out. Trayvon could just as easily let Zimmerman keep on walking.

Perhaps one way to determine this would be looking at a map and seeing where the SUV was in relation to where the fight took place. We know for a fact that Zimmerman began following Trayvon on foot, but only for a few seconds. So where did the fight take place? Further away than Zimmerman could’ve gotten in a few seconds?

Comment by Robert — 4/13/2012 @ 11:54 am

Now you’re thinking. The way I see this, it’s all going to come down to the audio of the 911 calls, which are time-stamped.

It is my expectation that the evidence will show for Trayvon to run in one direction and then come back and ambush Zimmerman undetected, he’d have to be more than a high school defensive back, he’d have to be Usain Bolt or the Road Runner.

Sarah W, you’re walking down a dark street and a car is following you, and a guy who is not a cop gets out and starts asking you questions – you don’t feel threatened?

Anyway, I’ve already discussed hypotheticals as much as I’m comfortable doing. We have lots of conjecture about what happened that night, but few hard facts, and without eyewitnesses, we most likely will never get more. Good luck proving your Murder 2 with the evidence you’ve got there, Florida.

But the fact remains that George Zimmerman had no freaking business getting out of that car in the first place, and if he’d left it in the hands of the actual police, none of this would have happened. Probably.

But absent some witness or forensics to show Zimmerman was doing something wronger that trying to spot the kid – for example, moving aggressively towards him, or brandishing a weapon, or saying “come at me bro” or grabbing him – Trayvon had no right to knock him down.

“But the fact remains that George Zimmerman had no freaking business getting out of that car in the first place, and if he’d left it in the hands of the actual police, none of this would have happened. Probably.”

That’s not correct. He had business at least to get a proper street address. And it’s not prudent, but also not a crime, to get out of one’s car to spot where a suspicious person has fled. These things by themselves did not precipitate a confrontation or use of
deadly force.

If Zimmerman’s account is true and correct, and Trayvon asked him “Do you have a problem”, and Zimmerman says “no” and does nothing to provoke (no weapon, no threatening gestures, no fighting words), then Trayvon no legal justification to attack Zimmerman with a punch in the face.

One might also reasonably presume that whatever answer was given, Trayvon surprised Zimmerman with the specific intention of initiating a physical fight, as he attacked without any specific provocation except his irritation at being scoped out. Trayvon could just as easily let Zimmerman keep on walking.

Comment by SarahW — 4/13/2012 @ 11:58 am

Seriously: I’d like you to take a moment to consider the possibility of Zimmerman, with his loaded gun and his intent to pursue Martin (the “a–hole” who always gets away) would respond “No” when asked if he “had a problem.”

In all honesty: Do you believe Zimmerman’s provocation-free account of their confrontation? If you do, do you believe it because you’re presuming his innocence until he’s proven guilty, or because it makes sense to you?

Zimmerman’s story, as you call it, may be true, somewhat true or completely false. There are significant holes in it already, but we don’t know what we don’t know here. The only facts that are not in dispute are that Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon, and that Trayvon was unarmed and where he was supposed to be. I think we can also agree that the prosecutor seems VERY confident.

Now, show me a set of facts where Zimmerman cornered the kid, or brandished a weapon, or said “I’m coming for you sucker” or knocked the kid down, or poked him, and then Zimmerman’s aggression precipitated the fight and the resort to deadly force.

Alex, I know of no holes in Zimmerman’s story. None.
That doesn’t mean there are none, just that there aren’t any so far.

We know deadly force was used, and that Trayvon died as a result of its use by Zimmerman. But if ZImmerman was in reasonable fear of severe injury or death, he had a right to use deadly force to end the threat.

It’s also not in dispute that Zimmerman was on the ground, getting hit by Trayvon, and that Zimmerman suffered injuries consistent with that fight.

That’s a good point, even more so when the neighborhood apparently had several instances of previous burglaries, and its homeowners knew the police couldn’t be everywhere at all times. So for the homeowners’ association to have chosen Zimmerman to, in effect, be their eyes and ears made sense.

BTW, there is sometimes a very fine line between “libertarian” and flat-out “liberalism.” Or the emotions that come with a silly “bleeding heart” and the peculiar anti-conformist emotions of a bratty teenager.

He said that Martin was running away from him. Why would Trayvon, in a new, strange environment, run away from Zimmerman and then come after him? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Not if Martin was into a game of cat-and-mouse. I can easily envision his originally being resentful that some guy was following him — particularly if Martin’s intentions on various occasions have been less than honest and lawful — and his then wanting to toy with the situation. But I do admit this is all supposition, and there are aspects of Zimmerman — or certainly his history — that aren’t too flattering.

Sarah, you need to look into this more. Some witness that said Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman have recanted. Actually who was attacking, who was on top etc is very much in dispute. Indeed it will be the heart of the case

“Zimmerman’s story, as you call it, may be true, somewhat true or completely false. There are significant holes in it already”

Please specify the holes in Zimmerman’s story backed up by facts and not conjecture. If his story didn’t hang together he would have been charged weeks ago. If what you say is actually true, then all bets are off. Zimmerman’s innocence depends on the story he gave the night of the shooting being consistent with all the other factual evidence.

He had a reason to be in the neighborhood. That doesn’t mean a reasonable person wouldn’t think that he was up to no good, where he was or wasn’t isn’t the determining thing but whether it was reasonable for Zimmerman to be suspicous at all.

Zimmerman described the kid, his movements, his reasons for suspicion. At face value they indicate a reasonable basis to call the cops and to see which way he went so the cops could find him. I wouldn’t have gotten out of my car but if I had seen what he saw, and known about the recent break-ins in the neighborhood, I would have called myself.

If Zimmerman did worse than follow, and I’m open to evidence that he did, that’s another story. But so far none has materialized.

The kid is not a super nice kid. He not only isn’t the 12 year old angel and model student that appeared before us in early accounts, but a minor thuggee with a drug habit and hints that he would take a swing at people if he was irritated.

But the fact remains that George Zimmerman had no freaking business getting out of that car in the first place

So you’re the type who prefers everyone not get involved, to keep to themselves, to avoid their neighbors, to be very skittish about ever getting in the middle of anything? To fret, worry and proclaim: “Because we’ll get SUED!! Because we won’t be around to watch our favorite TV show!! Because our reservations at our favorite local restaurant will be ruined! Because my nice clean pair of pants will be dirtied!”

The Trayvon Martin case merely furthers in various people’s mind that, ultimately, it’s not quite as meaningful to vote on election day, as it is to vote with one’s feet and the moving van.

Alex, there has been no recantation. A witness said police “corrected” her about which person was yelling, but that’s because she said the person in red was yelling and said it was the kid. Zimmerman was in red.

As Zimmerman was smaller in stature and underneath and yelling, and dressed in red, I think the witness made a typical error.

But the main witness who saw Zimmerman yelling for help has not recanted at all.

I’ve actually seen people count as a recantation that this main witness actually said the opposite – that he came out and saw Zimmerman on top. This is a misunderstanging. The witness said the kid was already dead, and that Zimmerman was standing.

Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove a damn thing. His lawyer doesn’t actually have to say anything after “Not Guilty” in order to win (although he probably will), Doesn’t even have to plead for that matter.

The state has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman acted unlawfully in killing Martin and factually disprove — to that same standard — any self-defense claim that Zimmerman might simply ASSERT without proof. It gets harder if he has evidence.

The two burdens are not vaguely similar and yet you guys keep demanding that Zimmerman’s defenders prove their case. They don’t have to. You do, with facts, and you have to nail the proof.

Its in dispute that Trayvon was doing anything or anywhere wrong also. Dispute goes both ways, and you nor I know. We just don’t. Trayvons drug and violence stuff is very much in dispute, but even if he smoked weed, that’s not relevant. Being quick to violence, if true, offers interesting speculation, but won’t bear on the case, imho

So you’re recommending that it makes better sense for people to vote with their feet and moving van? Okay, but please don’t complain about American society remaining surprisingly segregated decades after the sea-change trends — and supposedly new enlightenment — of the 1960s.

OK, I’ll bite. Where is a [national] police force specifically authorized in the Constitution? OR even a local one called out, for that matter. Militia and armed forces, yes. Police? Don’t find it.

Or do you mean some hidden “enumerated” power?

Comment by Kevin M — 4/13/2012 @ 12:26 pm

George Washington did put his blue coat back on to go and suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. 😉 The executive power carries with it the authority to enforce the federal enumerated powers, whether by the President in person, or US Marshals, or the FBI, or Big Sis ….

Consider if Zimmerman lied through his teeth the night of the shooting. Would you be sitting in an FL jail right now if you had been released that evening? He had weeks to slip away and didn’t even though he had no way of knowing if anybody saw him do the crime when he was in veiw of at least a half dozen townhomes.. Makes no sense to stay if it’s likely you’ll lose.

No mark, what I’m saying is hoa’s need to be very careful about neighborhood watches they organize, and never ever let them be armed with anything. Not sure about your moving can comment…. My statement applies anywhere.

OK, Kevin, you caught me glossing over that. It’s clearly not an enumerated power, in that it’s a power really exercised by states and localities. I just couldn’t believe someone would say libertarians don’t believe in police powers. They believe in limits on them, certainly, but keeping the peace is a pretty basic requirement of even the smallest form government. Libertarianism does not equal vigilantism, and I was a little nonplussed that someone would make that statement. (And I am a small L libertarian, not a doctrinaire nutball. At least, I don’t think I am… 😉

But I do believe that people should have the right to peaceably walk down a street under most circumstances without being questioned, regardless of how suspicious someone might think they look. That’s just me, apparently.

In general, a gun provides the advantage of being able to strike from a distance and distance equals safety from knives, fists, clubs, and a whole range of weapons which require close proximity for effect.

Consequently, a guy with a gun is ill advised to allow a potential adversary to approach within striking distance. It’s much better to retreat at the approach of a potential threat and maintain the personal safety and overwhelming advantage a gun provides.

Zimmerman didn’t need to close with TraMar, the cops had his location, his description, and were already on the way. It was to TraMar’s advantage to confront Zimmerman up close and personal. Not the other way around.

And this is precisely the kind of attitude that very well may have gotten Trayvon killed. Though, again, I have yet to see evidence that Z actually stopped T first, rather than T being the one who initiated the conversation.

Yeah, Alex, proof of innocence. Anybody that shows up to court is innocent. Good one!

Try to keep up. There was a loud argument right behind two sets of town homes. Multiple people called 911 after witnessing something. And you’re guilty but you figure out a clever lie and they let you go. Then Jesse Jackson and Rev Al come to town. Make the case that you stay for justice knowing you’re guilty and, even if the court messes up, you’re future in America is gone from the notorietary.

I can’t say what I’d do for sure, but I would have counseled Zimmerman to flee once this case became politics instead of justice.

So we got NK saying showing up for trial is proof your innocent, and Jay calling for people to flee rather than go to court. Nice, same crowd. Perhaps I better take NK’s advice and shut up so y’all can hear the voices in your heads….. Lord a mighty!

If by “wuss” you mean “not bullet-proof”, then you are certainly correct. Or if by “wuss” you mean “someone who doesn’t initiate violence due to some minimal perceived slight”, then you’re spot again, Mr. Internet Tough Guy.

So you’re the type who prefers everyone not get involved, to keep to themselves, to avoid their neighbors, to be very skittish about ever getting in the middle of anything? To fret, worry and proclaim: “Because we’ll get SUED!! Because we won’t be around to watch our favorite TV show!! Because our reservations at our favorite local restaurant will be ruined! Because my nice clean pair of pants will be dirtied!”

Comment by Mark — 4/13/2012 @ 12:32 pm

I tend to think that perhaps they’re “the type” who don’t want to be the target of unreconstructed sixties revolutionaries, who don’t want their life history to be committed to memory by untold millions (perhaps billions) of people they will never meet but will nevertheless be judged by, and who don’t want to ever have on their conscience killing someone who wasn’t doing a damn thing wrong because they had a loaded gun and thought that person looked “suspicious.”

144 jay: I’ll thank you not to make assumptions, just makes you look like an ass. I don’t watch tv, don’t have cable, and I am a registered republican. Go take a long long walk down a short pier for me, ok?

Makes me wonder what she knows that we don’t (I bet a lot, and I bet significant)

I don’t understand your basis for this view. A lot of prosecutors present cases with confidence and yet do not have more evidence than they put forwards. I don’t think prosecutors typically hold secret info in a pocket to whip out dramatically. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s improper and also stupid.

How do you know, Mr. Smithee, that Trayvon wasn’t doing anything wrong? Zimmerman called 911 and the police seemed to think there was something suscpicous or they wouldn’t have sent the cruiser. They could all be wrong and you could be right. But how do you know that?

Actually, I think I’ll stick around and watch you embarrass yourself some more. It’s interesting to watch someone who apparently can’t quite grasp the concept that giving in to one’s baser violent tendencies has the potential to backfire disastrously. In the Trayvon case, perhaps w/ actual gunfire. I wonder if your admitted violent tendencies creates something of a feeling of kinship w/ Trayvon. Or perhaps merely the thought that you cannot freely indulge those urges w/o deadly consequences just makes you uneasy.

Until polite “conservatives” are willing to speak honestly about race issues in this country, they continue to enable the Sharptons and Jacksons.

Comment by Jim — 4/13/2012 @ 11:00 am

Nonsense. There is no thwarting Sharpton, Jackson, or their minor-league MLK-wannabes throughout America because THEY aren’t honest about race. Race riots used to happen at least once a year when I was in my single-digits, and black religious leaders were seen as peacemakers. Now, they try the best they can to START riots as a way of illustrating their organizing power.

Al Sharpton became a household word because of a racial hoax for which he STILL has not apologized to this day! It’s likely you know the name “Tawana Brawley”; Google “Raynard Johnson.” You’ve never heard of him, have you? That’s because Jesse Jackson tried to make his hanging death seem like a lynching when he actually just committed suicide. Any apologies? Nope, and none were demanded, either, because polite liberals never ask for them. That would be rude!

But I don’t understand your speculation as well as I understand the speculation that the law is on George’s side. Even as someone who is very critical of George’s choices, I see the basis for this view.

There is no recantation. There is, as yet, no evidence that Zimmerman took any action contrary to what he told police.

If what he told police is true, the only question remaining is if use of deadly force under the circumstances he described, is reasonable use of force. I would say yes. I would be afraid for my life if a suspicious kid ran away and hid, reappeared and confronted and attacked with no more provocation than described, struck me in the face and knocked me down, had me on the ground on my back, beating my head against a surfaace hard enough to lacerate it, and saw my gun and said “you are going to die today”.

155. I am speculating based on the idea that the priority for any prosecutor is a conviction. Assuming that is her priority, she chose the toughest charge to prove. Thus I am speculating she is confident for a reason.

If information should develop that Zimmerman did more than look for the kid, that’s a different situation.

If Zimmerman tried to detain the kid with force or threat of force, or was so aggressive (approaching aggressively, brandishing a weapon, etc) that Trayvon would be reasonable to use force to stop Zimmerman or get away, that would be different.

However, there is no evidence that Zimmerman did any such thing.

It doesn’t matter if Trayvon is 17 or Trayvon wasn’t armed.

If Trayvon saw the gun and went for it, he was about to be. That alone would justify preemptive action if there were no other escape. This is Zimmerman’s story.

The blows alone, the head-banging in particular, could kill or severely injure Zimmerman. Brain damage is severe injury, and banging someone’s head on something hard can cause it.

Where is the evidence that Zimmerman did more than look for the kid? Where is the evidence that he went looking for a fight, instead of a suspicious person’s specific location?

Where is any evidence he did not try to avoid a fight with a passive response to Trayvon’s demand, only to be knocked down anyway?

From 156: “There is, as yet, no evidence that Zimmerman took any action contrary to what he told police.”

Sarah acknowledges with “as yet” that we likely don’t have all the facts, and new evidence may come to light.

Also from 156: “If what he told police is true, the only question remaining…”

Here Sarah provides the caveat that Zimmerman’s version of events may or may not be true. Contrary to what you apparently took away, this is not an assertion of certainty. This is actually literally the opposite, a recognition that the events of that day remain unclear.

But frequently, when people talk to resolve differences instead of wailing on each other, they employ a tactic whereby they ASSUME a certain set of facts for the purpose of speculating on what would follow from those assumed facts. By doing this, they do not necessarily assert that the fact set, or hypothetical, actually is historically correct. This is what Sarah was doing here.

161: as I said repeatedly: “speculating”
159: as to your request for evidence, I think you have shown that you accept evidence that leans to your already established narrative, and dismiss that which does not. In short, you have an agenda and are not interested in anything other than supporting your agenda. Like for example, Al Sharpton.

How do you know, Mr. Smithee, that Trayvon wasn’t doing anything wrong? Zimmerman called 911 and the police seemed to think there was something suscpicous or they wouldn’t have sent the cruiser. They could all be wrong and you could be right. But how do you know that?

Comment by East Bay Jay — 4/13/2012 @ 1:15 pm

Earth to Jay: THEY WERE ALL WRONG! It’s the cops’ job to come to see what’s up when someone says, “He looks like he’s on drugs, or something” and “He’s reaching into his waistband.” Was Trayvon on drugs? NO! Was there anything in his waistband? HIS WAIST!

You need a new dictionary if yours says one of the synonyms for “suspicious” (or “suscpicous”) is “guilty!”

That’s absurd, Alex. What evidence? If there is any it hasn’t been put forward.

There is no agenda BTW – except noticing how very hard flatly wrong or misleading information was put out about this incident – which leads to natural wondering why the truth wasn’t good enough and why would anyone play along with the misleading information. Massage is not necessary when the facts are on your side.

There simply isn’t any evidence YET made public to justify the charges. Even the charging document doesn’t support the charges, if highly experienced criminal defense attorneys are taken at their word.

When and if any story or evidence emerges that is contrary to Zimmerman doing more than following, I’ll take note of it at rate the merits.

There haven’t been any recantations, and I wonder why you would exaggerate on that point.

I have heard nothing first hand from the girl friend and her narrative might be the reason Zimmerman was charged – perhaps a claim that Zimmerman did something more than follow.

Interesting read so far. Not sure what to think of this case without all the facts. Definitely know enough not to make a decision based on the media’s sensationalized “facts.” I do think I understand what Zimmerman was thinking when he started to follow Martin though. I had a similar situation in my neighborhood a few months ago. Young teenager with hoodie (caucasion) was lurking around my neighbors yard. My wife mentioned it and I went to see what he was doing because my neighbors husband was out of town and we had some problems with vandalism lately. The kid ran and threw something in my neighbors yard when I approached him, wife called the cops, they came and searched the yard but the kid was gone. Of course I didn’t take a gun out there to question a teenager but if I was out on patrol in my neighborhood I may have thought differently, I don’t know.

Sarah doesn’t need me to cover her back or anything, but she’s quite insightful and the reason is she collects facts and follows them better than most folks (certainly better than I do), but explains where she’s coming from.

This is the exact opposite of Al Sharpton.

She is not dismissing things merely to fit the narrative. That you see it that way actually is pretty odd given how well she explains her basis.

It’s great that you’re arguing against the flow here and I don’t mean to pile on, but the people who disagree with you are not being unreasonable.

The dispatcher said “you don’t have to do that”. Not a warning, recommendation, advice, much less an order. So let’s not start saying he disobeyed them.

This.

Now Patterico raises a good point — did Zimmerman then follow this … what do you call it? advice?even that seems pushing it — but if words mean things, Zimmerman wasn’t even asked not to follow the person he was suspicious of. Instead, he was just told he didn’t have to (i.e., that he had no duty to).

If Zimmerman was in contact with the police dispatcher and was doing more than was expected of him, and was disobeying no request … then doesn’t, if anything, this aspect of the matter go to Zimmerman’s credit? If anything, he’s being proactively brave.

By itself, that doesn’t mean Zimmerman is innocent of anything (and obviously his actions ultimately put him in a bad, bad situation), but it certainly doesn’t make me think anything less of his character.

All of the above (what I wrote) is moot if Zimmerman did in fact double back:

Zimmerman said “OK” to the “we don’t need you to do that”.

… but my point is, even if he didn’t double back to his truck at that point, it’s totally untrue to say he was disobeying any kind of order or request. It might have been stupid, but was not against clearly stated requests from the authorities.

fwiw, Zimmerman wasn’t on patrol that night. He was on an errand when he spotted the kid.

Comment by SarahW — 4/13/2012 @ 2:29 pm

All of which goes to my idea that he might just have a naturally protective streak in him. I’m like that sometimes — have been since I was a child. It can at times lead to being in bad situations, or mistakes being made, but it is motivated with a desire to protect, definitely, at least for me.

The fact that he got involved with something he was suspicious of does not, by itself, make me think less of him; rather the reverse.

Which isn’t to say his subsequent actions were legal, just that the attacks on his character for getting involved seem misguided to me.

Random: ignoring a command or advice from the police is a very bad idea. Playing cop is a very bad idea. Doing neighborhood watch is a very bad idea. You do enough stupid things long enough, bad things happen. Morally I think the facts as known publicly make Zimmerman the “bad” guy, pretty clearly actually. But stupid is not illegal. The known public facts make murder 2 a near impossibility. This ic see three main possibilities, the prosecutor:
1) is full of herself (hubris)
2) has some strategy like getting Zimmerman to plea down
3) knows more than any of us

So I can only assume this account is the reason for the charges – that Zimmerman says he was walking back to his car, and the girlfriend (per the lawyer) implies he instead confronted Trayvon and started a physical confrontation.

My takeaway is even if those were her exact words, they have Trayvon initiating conversation, and it isn’t clear who pushed whom.

Random: ignoring a command or advice from the police is a very bad idea. Playing cop is a very bad idea. Doing neighborhood watch is a very bad idea.

1. Alex, you know for a fact the police dispatcher is not the police. Further, “We don’t need you to do that is nowhere near the same thing as, “Don’t do that.” The fire department (and his security detail) would have (/did) say to Cory Booker something along the lines of, “You don’t need to go into the house. We have people along the way.” But guess what? He’s a brave man and a decent one, so he went in.

2. He didn’t play cop. He called the cops. He “played” concerned citizen.

3. “Doing neighborhood watch is a very bad idea.” You’re joking, right? That’s actually the world you want to live in, relying on the police for everything, even when they are not there? It’s a rhetorical question. I’m sure that’s exactly how you think.

I now see your corrected version: “doing neighborhood watch with a gun is a very bad idea.” Is it? Looks like having a gun may have made the difference between life and death for Zimmerman, depending on how the forensics and other facts pan out at trial.

L.N. Smithee @90 – With respect to the claims that the original Sanford Police Detective wanted to charge Zimmerman, I believe there has been a bit a media malpractice:

“Some news agencies have reported that Sanford’s lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger’s office put a stop to it. The city of Sanford issued a statement saying that is not true.

Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists “manslaughter” as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.

Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman’s account – that he had acted in self-defense.

“The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event,” Serino told the Sentinel March 16. “Everything I have is adding up to what he says.””

And I keep being reminded that I am in error when I say this. Because there is no basis to say George Zimmerman brought a gun to his neighborhood watch.

He wasn’t even on watch. He brought a gun for an errand.

Not sure if this relates to the criminal matter, but it is a perfect example of the confirmation bias issue you discussed previously. A completely wrong fact.

Comment by Dustin — 4/13/2012 @ 2:46 pm

That. And even knowing — even writing about! — the fact he was on an errand, didn’t stop me from temporarily buying into the premise.

All I can say is if I was doing neighborhood watch rounds and had a carry permit, I’d carry. I wouldn’t plan on using my gun, but why would I leave it behind?

True, I’d make sure I had a flashlight, my cell phone, a video camera, and comfy tightly-tied shoes on so I could keep my distance if possible, but that isn’t to say I’d on purpose leav my means of self-protection behind.

Random, I clearly said command OR ADVICE. He was playing cop and he wanted to be a cop. And neighborhood watch does not use guns or any weapons (real neighborhood watch). If you need believe certain things I won’t try to stop you any further. Good luck with it

183 Dustin. Ok, how about this: confronting people with a gun is a very very bad idea that will eventually get you in a lot of trouble. I think Zimmerman’s current situation proves this handily. Good day.

Random, I clearly said command OR ADVICE. He was playing cop and he wanted to be a cop. And neighborhood watch does not use guns or any weapons (real neighborhood watch). If you need believe certain things I won’t try to stop you any further. Good luck with it

You obviously don’t use a gun to do neighborhood watch work; that requires, er, watching (and phone calling), which Zimmerman has done for quite some time (and to his credit).

You carry a gun because you’re an existent human being and if you value your lives and the lives of others, you train in and carry (as well as give more thought to do when not disarmed) the means to protect yourself and others.

Zimmerman wasn’t, it turns out, on patrol. He was on an errand. And of course it makes sense to carry your gun.

Only a moment, and haven’t read all of the last 100 posts, but I’ll say this-

First, thanks shipwreckedcrew
second, the idea that police are going to respond with any timely arrival for a “suspicious person in the neighborhood” is something that goes back at least 25 years for me. For the last 25 years I have lived where the police come in a timely fashion only when gun shots are reported. I have a friend who watched one guy beaten by a group for 45 minutes before the police arrived here in our fair city. A good thing they only wanted to mess with the guy, not kill him.

I don’t know exactly what kind of neighborhood this is, or what kind of neighborhoods some of you who are critical of his town watch activities are from. If I did town watch in our neighborhood I would carry a weapon and be prepared to use it if necessary. No police are going to come with a burglary in progress most of the time, let alone for “somebody acting suspicious”. And if somebody jumped me I’d be long dead before the police got there.

We live in a relatively nice neighborhood, yet in the last 5 years have had 1 policeman murdered, at least 3 armed robberies, and several other “miscellaneous shootings”… that I know of. A number of years ago #2 son was attacked 2 blocks away.

Town watch, IMO, is a joke unless the person puts his neck on the line for real or the police can come within 5 minutes for any 911 call. Patrol my neighborhood in a car and call when I see something suspicious? I’d be better off sitting at home and watching TV, at least I could do something if it was my house being burglarized. Give the guy credit for wanting to keep the neighborhood from going to he**.

Alex – “agenda” thing = stupid. Also – you said it’s bad to carry the gun on a neighborhood watch. That might be so but its irrelevant as he was not. He was a neighborhood watch captain. He wasn’t that evening.

L.N. Smithee — 4/13/2012 @ 2:41 pm

It would not have been reasonable to brandish the weapon while trying to spot him and it would not have been reasonable to display the weapon to detain him or use it if Trayvon tried to flee.

It’s perfectly reasonable for anyone with a concealed carry permit to have a loaded weapon on them in any place during any activity where they aren’t prohibited by law.

It’s perfectly reasonable for anyone with a concealed carry permit to have a loaded weapon on them in any place during any activity where they aren’t prohibited by law.

Once again there’s SarahW with those smart comments.

It’s funny, because I agree with the vast, vast majority of what she writes, but I’m sure our world views are tens of miles apart. There’s some kind of irony there. I just think she’s really smart, but I guess I can’t type that without being arrogant.

The events leading up to it, of course. Anyone and everyone would wish otherwise (except maybe the race hustlers, but even some of them might have enough remaining humanity to wish so). But if Zimmerman’s story is true, do you think he regrets shooting Martin? I doubt it. He shouldn’t, anyway — not if he’s telling the truth about what happened.

I suggest there are 4 kinds of neighborhoods:
1. neighborhoods with enough community that no town watch is necessary
2. neighborhoods that are basically very nice where some teens have been vandalizing and who don’t want to get caught
3. neighborhoods where the criminal element doesn’t care if they’re seen, they will deal with you, so if you do town watch be able to defend yourself (which, as SarahW has said, is not going around with gun out playing sheriff)
4. neighborhoods where you stay inside

Very nice for you who live in neighborhoods #1 or 2, but you have no reason to criticize a citizen who wants to keep his neighborhood liveable.

Sorry, last one: 205, I would be severely upset at Zimmerman or any Zimmerman type in my HOA! Absolutely. You do realize that Zimmerman has in all likelihood destroyed the value of every home in the HOA, and thus the finances of many owners? The HOA is almost surely liable in any future civil action, and in FL houses can be leaned to pay any judgement. Zimmerman was a danger to a lot more people than Trayvon.

Alex, you know for a fact the police dispatcher is not the police. Further, “We don’t need you to do that is nowhere near the same thing as, “Don’t do that.” The fire department (and his security detail) would have (/did) say to Cory Booker something along the lines of, “You don’t need to go into the house. We have people along the way.” But guess what? He’s a brave man and a decent one, so he went in.

Comment by Random — 4/13/2012 @ 2:45 pm

WOW! What a GREAT simile!

Because the brave deed Cory Booker did, a elderly woman is alive. And because of the “brave” deed George Zimmerman did, a young man is dead.

Because the brave deed Cory Booker did, a elderly woman is alive. And because of the “brave” deed George Zimmerman did, a young man is dead.

The point isn’t the result. The point is both men were willing to get involved to help others. If Martin did in fact confront Zimmerman while he was returning to his truck, throw the first blow, and start banging Zimmerman’s head on the concrete — something that can cause brain injury or death — and shot Martin in self-defense at that point, good for him. I’m glad he’s alive. There’s no reason he should have to pay with his life for, in an effort to help the people of his community, asking someone some questions about what they’re doing.

If, on the other hand, he set Martin up, forced him into a fight, attacked him, or otherwise caused Martin to respond with reasonable self-defense, then let Zimmerman pay.

However, there is as of yet no evidence of that. We know that Zimmerman liked to help out his community by being watch captain, and I respect him for that.

To a degree after this (it’s just a theory, albeit a plausible one), but especially after this (also referenced in the first link), it’s really hard to see how they convict Zimmerman of anything. As is often the case, Alan Dershowitz called it.

(Credit to all the people above who referenced these and similar sources.)

L.N. Smithee, sorry dude — I understand it’s emotionally upsetting: that was my first reaction (based largely on the media’s manipulation and outright lies, I now discover — but it looks good for Zimmerman now. I think he should ride it out, not take a deal, and then sue for malicious prosecution … and also sue NBC for defamation.

And for the Hell of it, Zimmerman should sue the Black Panthers. It isn’t like the racist Obama administration’s Justice Department will do anything about their flagrantly criminal acts of offering a bounty for Zimmerman’s life. Perhaps Zimmerman can also sue the federal government.

I’d be mad were I him and I would go on the offense. It isn’t like being on the defense has bought him anything but death threats.

the one thing this whole incident can do is be used as an object lesson to over testosteroned young males raised up an a diet of hip-hop/rap/street/urban/whatever culture that going around proving how tough you are and standing up for your street cred can get you dead anywhere CCW laws allow the average citizen to arm themselves.

yes, you are bigger, stronger, faster, etc than i am, but when it all comes down to it, i can put a couple 230gn FMJ 45 slugs in your heart/lung group faster than you can say “I’m gonna kill you mother@*(*!!!”

young Mr Thuglife would still be alive today if he hadn’t been a dumbsh1t.

There’s a school of thought that if you have a concealed handgun permit, go ahead and carry whenever you are legally and practically able to do so.

I won’t pretend Zimmerman was whistling and minding his own business when Martin jumped out of the bushes and started knocking his head into the ground or anything, but I think the narrative that his community watch work morphed into mall-ninja because he had a Kel Tec amulet of invincibility is a narrative the media presented without good basis.

As Random correctly notes, it sent a lot of reasonable people off track.

I wish George had handled this a lot differently. It’s led to a tragedy that was avoidable and if there was any proactive way to avoid it, that would have been nice.

When I thought he was on community watch patrol, I was saying he should have brought a buddy. Now I think he saw something he was earnestly suspicious of and it got out of hand. Both parties made a lot of mistakes that escalated things, and the one with the gun won out, which doesn’t mean it’s murder. It’s possible to see this situation completely reversed, with an 18 year old Martin trying to escape someone he doesn’t realize is just reporting a suspicious person, and when cornered, thinking he’s defending himself.

George is a good lesson for everyone who wants to improve their community’s safety.

It’s possible to see this situation completely reversed, with an 18 year old Martin trying to escape someone he doesn’t realize is just reporting a suspicious person, and when cornered, thinking he’s defending himself.

That was definitely my starting position on this. But it’s not longer what I think happened. If you analyze this closely, I think you might agree that it shows Zimmerman trying to keep Martin in sight so he can tell the police what direction he went, but doesn’t support Zimmerman tracking Martin down to the Nth degree — Martin must have turned to confront Zimmerman, and it doesn’t look like Martin was anything like cornered at that point.

I can understand turning to face your pursuer, but I don’t believe the evidence supports Martin being “cornered”.

The truck and the phone call location are plotted. The suspicion is that Zimmerman walked along the road from where he saw Martin to see where he went. He did not approach the townhouse where the father’s girlfriend lives. I agree he should never have gotten out of his truck but he may not have followed Martin except from a distance to see where he went.

I’ve never for one moment believed Zimmerman was a “psycho” or anything like it, and I’m sure he’s devastated that he took a life like this.

I’ve also never believed Martin was anything but scared because some guy was after him for no apparent reason.

I still come down to the point that, in the absence of any evidence that Martin was doing anything wrong (which I’ve never heard), Zimmerman had zero business getting out of his car. Zero. He called the police. That should have been enough.

I was exagerating for effect. What I believed is that Zimmerman was overzealous, Martin felt threatened, and justifiably faced his attacker, who for one reason or another, shot Martin.

I’ve also never believed Martin was anything but scared because some guy was after him for no apparent reason.

Unless he turned back and walked a block to go face down Zimmerman. That sounds as much like anger as fear. And if he’s bashing Zimmerman’s head on the ground, well …

I still come down to the point that, in the absence of any evidence that Martin was doing anything wrong (which I’ve never heard), Zimmerman had zero business getting out of his car. Zero. He called the police. That should have been enough.

It’s a free country. Further, walking a little ways to see which direction someone went so you can tell the police is just simply not a bad behavior.

I was at home a couple years ago and I heard some guy screaming for help

I ran outside to see if I could help. Was kids horsing around, I later determined.

Should I have stayed indoors? Ah, to hell with it. I brought my phone to call the cops with me, a weapon, and whatever. I may or may not have gotten involved depending on what I saw (or what happened, which could admittedly have forced my hand, something I was aware of). I had no criminal intent whatsoever.

But am I obligated to stay in my own home just because I fear something bad might be happening?

If you’re in your home and someone walks by your house who looks suspicious, do you run out and confront them? Should you?

Depends how suspicious they’re looking, but sure. As long as I’m asking them, not attacking them, I have the right to. If I think they’re suspicious, they eyeball me calling the cops, and take off running, I might want to help the cops know in what direction they ran.

I still come down to the point that, in the absence of any evidence that Martin was doing anything wrong (which I’ve never heard), Zimmerman had zero business getting out of his car. Zero. He called the police. That should have been enough.

I don’t think it’s illegal to follow anyone, so it doesn’t matter whether it was Zimmerman or Martin (or both) doing the following.

However, I disagree there is “the absence of any evidence that Martin was doing anything wrong.” There is testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and also that the man on the bottom (Zimmerman) was yelling for help. There was also evidence that Zimmerman’s head and nose were hurt. Thus, there is evidence Martin attacked Zimmerman, but there is no evidence Zimmerman attacked Martin before he shot him.

This has been said before, so I’ll say what I’ve said before. I wouldn’t even bother calling the police in my neighborhood for a “suspicious person” wondering around, nor would I try seeing what he was up to because I wouldn’t want to risk harm to myself (being without a weapon and 50+out of shape), so any criminal activity would go ahead and take place.

If this happened in a neighborhood where police came for “suspicious looking people” within 5 minutes then Z should have stayed in his vehicle, but that is not my neighborhood.

I think neighborhoods stay safe when everyone knows people like Z are keeping their eyes open for each other. Neighborhoods where nobody is going to do anything until the police get there in 15 minutes at best, if not 30 minutes or more, are an invitation to get away with what you can.

Sounds to me that if M was walking along the sidewalk going from place A to place B there would have been no issue; that if M had continued on his way without trying to get a jump on Z this would not have happened; if Z didn’t give a d*** about his neighborhood he would have not bothered to be watchful and this wouldn’t have happened. Also sounds as if the media didn’t go out of their way to distort the facts in order to make it a racial controversy most of us wouldn’t have heard of this local tragedy; and that if the President and DOJ were at all interested in justice for all, meaning the KKK doesn’t get to harass blacks and the NBPP doesn’t get to harass whites there would be less tension about it all.

I think neighborhoods stay safe when everyone knows people like Z are keeping their eyes open for each other.

Exactly.

the NBPP doesn’t get to harass whites

Well not just harass, but also call for the kidnapping or death of, offering money as a reward. It’s a scandal and a disgrace that Justice doesn’t do anything about that. What kind of message does that send? There should be arrests, period.

You can‘t put a bounty on someone’s head in America, if you’re part of a large radical black group. Would the feds stand for some home-grown white-supremacist militia putting a bounty on the head of a black man?

And I still believe that if you’re walking down a public street doing nothing wrong, you shouldn’t get hassled by strangers.

Life isn’t perfect. If some stranger calls the cops on you and follows you a bit, you ought not to walk back to him and bash his head on the ground. Alternatively, you could walk away and when/if the cops show up, point out that the guy is following and harassing you.

I don’t even believe in a duty to retreat. If Martin had just stood there and Zimmerman came at him, then I could see Martin fighting. Not saying what the laws are in Florida, just saying that doesn’t offend my sense of right and wrong.

RC, for the umpteenth time, if M was simply walking down the sidewalk from point A to point B and Z stopped and got out to follow him because he was a black teen in a hoodie, we all agree with you. If it is a neighborhood where there have been break-ins and you see a guy wandering around seemingly more like casing the area than going anywhere in specific then you can say, “What the h***, not my house” or “call the police”, which he did. As noted by another, he apparently wanted to keep aware of M’s presence presumably from a distance, so he could tell the police, if they came soon enough, more than “he went that away, and disappeared”.

And I still believe that if you get annoyed because someone is watching you, and you maneuver so you can surprise and attack them, then don’t blame the other person for what happens when they try to defend themselves (if that is indeed what happened).

Yes, Random, what the NBPP threatened was more than being a pain in someone’s butt, but what the KKK is responsible for is more than simply “harassing” also. I wasn’t trying to minimize what the NBPP was doing, rather trying to make the point that protecting the public is just that, no matter what color is doing the threatening and possibly the physical harm.

I dunno, Random. You have a right to be sure your enemy is no longer capable of harming you or any other innocent person.

Maybe, depending on relevant case law and such. The rule of thumb as I understand it is you can use as much force as is necessary to remove the danger from the situation.

However, I don’t see how the government produces anything like proof beyond a reasonable doubt against Zimmerman in light of what’s known and can reasonably be inferred. The facts in the prosecutor’s affidavit are consistent with Zimmerman’s story.

but what the KKK is responsible for is more than simply “harassing” also.

Well, yes, obviously. But at some point the feds were willing to take on the KKK. That lesson has been learned and there is not one good reason for the feds not to take on the NBPP, when they’re being so blatant and public about it. If the law isn’t seen to be cared about even by the Justice Department, then people will lose respect for the law.

nk, Random, that is a judgement call. One person gets in your face, throws a punch, you respond and deck the person who then sits there, rubbing his chin, you don’t have reason to do a side-kick to the head and put him out. If there are three people confronting you, and the one with the knife lunges at you first, and you dispatch him with a blow that puts him out and leaves permanent brain damage and then proceed to break arms in the next two, it can easily be argued that you had the need to protect yourself from attackers rejoining the fight. There is a lot of murky ground in between.

Random, I think we are in agreement. I already have zero respect for the AG; I’m just hoping there are enough people between him and most decisions/actions to minimize the damage until he can be replaced.

L.N. Smithee, sorry dude — I understand it’s emotionally upsetting: that was my first reaction (based largely on the media’s manipulation and outright lies, I now discover — but it looks good for Zimmerman now. I think he should ride it out, not take a deal, and then sue for malicious prosecution … and also sue NBC for defamation.

What’s “emotionally upsetting” to me is how the entire incident is too often being debated not based on logic, but based on which side one wants to come out on top politically. If Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee, the New Black Panther Party, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and gun control fanatics are on one side, some people have to be on the other, even if — like you — they have to stretch their imaginations in order to make a hero out of Zimmerman and a thug out of Martin.

Most of the comments here and other conservative hangouts have focused almost exclusively on Zimmerman’s frame of mind. Well, what about Trayvon’s? As far as Martin was concerned, he was being stalked by a stranger who was calling someone on a cell phone. Who is the stranger? Who is he calling, and for what purpose? Why in the world was he chasing him? Has anyone considered that perhaps the reason why Martin (allegedly) was bashing Zimmerman’s head into the concrete was not because he flew into a rage about being followed, but because he discovered this stranger — who was following him for no discernible reason — had a gun?

If Martin had been in possession of stolen property, or contraband, I could see a reason for thinking Trayvon was a disaster waiting to happen. If he was a gang member, or just had an arrest record, ditto. None of that is the case. As much as racism is unfairly ascribed to Zimmerman, a bad attitude of the magnitude that would lead Trayvon to a murderous attack on Zimmerman apropos of nothing is ascribed to him. It seems to me that presumption of Martin’s innocence or an argument that he may have been provoked is unimportant to some people because it doesn’t matter now — he’s dead. Well, it should matter to the 2nd Amendment crowd, because it will NOT be a feather in your cap if it appears that “stand your ground” laws permit people to create a situation likely to result in a deadly confrontation in which an innocent person is killed.

There are too many people, IMHO, who have the “One less sodbuster” attitude toward Trayvon. If you have seen Shane with Alan Ladd & Jack Palance, you know what I’m talking about. If you haven’t, watch this.

RC, I believe the story as relayed to the 911 operator was that he was wandering around, walking through the grass though it was cold and rainy, etc., not simply strolling down the street. He made mention that it appeared the person was on drugs, or some such.
But yes, we have a lot of speculation.

I walk through my neighborhood. Sometimes I do stop, track back, look around a bit, typically when I am curious about a repair project on one of the 100 year plus homes in our area, like mine. If someone asks what I’m doing I typically don’t punch them, or try to “get away” but I tell them, “I was looking at the way you’ve set up the scaffolding to work on that part of your house. I’ve got a funny curved area that I’m not sure what to do.” Or the other day when I heard voices in my front yard (voices from a race different than mine, no less!!), stuck my head out, and saw two ladies close to the house taking a picture of an open tulip. I said , “Go ahead, but I think there is a house with more around the corner on 11th street”.

Florida juries convict people all the time. It helps if there’s strong evidence of guilt.

Most of the comments here and other conservative hangouts have focused almost exclusively on Zimmerman’s frame of mind. Well, what about Trayvon’s?

I and several commenters here have (today and previously) said that Trayvon probably felt threatened. In fact, I started out as a huge booster for this proposition.

But then the media were lying to me about various things, and while Martin may have felt threatened, it looks likely he doubled back to deal with Zimmerman. This was a mistake.

For reasons given in the links contained within this comment, it looks to me that Martin approached Zimmerman unnecessarily and escalated the confrontation. At any rate, I don’t see sufficient evidence against Zimmerman to charge let alone convict, despite my initial feelings on the subject.

The first thing the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Martin was a living human being. No prosecutor who wants to win a case will accept a defense stipulation. Depending on the judge’s patience, there will be baby pictures, birthday pictures, graduation pictures, mamas, daddies, aunts, cousins girlfriend. While Zimmerman sits there looking homely and aching for a pee.

“My parenthetical remarks about Zimmerman’s initial encounter with Martin
(that Martin’s approach to Zimmerman suggested aggression and his
flight suggested guilt) was not to interpret the actual meaning of
Martin’s actions. The subject was how Zimmerman might reasonably
interpret them, to assess his state of mind at the time that he made his
“fucking coons” (or “fucking punks”) remark under his breath.”

Yeah, thanks for explaining. I obviously don’t think Zimmerman’s interpretation is reasonable. Black people probably lived in the complex and for that matter, white people know black people and they visit. Suspicion is one thing. Stalking after being advised by the police not to and eventually following, getting into a confrontation with, and shooting is another.

Also, look at that kid. May have seemed different in the dark, but he’s a smiling good-natured looking kid. I don’t think that means he couldn’t have been violent — he was when cornered, provoked, or angered near the end — but I definitely think the world suffered a loss at his shooting.

\’Tell me 843, would your training have you approach and assault a person
who is obviously keeping tabs on you from a distance and is not trying
to approach you?”

It would depend partly on distance. Above a certain range, unarmed, no — escape and evasion would be the order of the day (and apparently this was tried when he ran). Wthin a certain distance, if I feared for my life, I’d close with and dominate my opponent.

I added the bolding now, because it’s important. I might have added at the time, but for technical reasons, can’t use html tags at his site anymore. Lots of people can’t. Movable Type is stupid. 😛

“My parenthetical remarks about Zimmerman’s initial encounter with Martin
(that Martin’s approach to Zimmerman suggested aggression and his
flight suggested guilt) was not to interpret the actual meaning of
Martin’s actions. The subject was how Zimmerman might reasonably
interpret them, to assess his state of mind at the time that he made his
“f—ing coons” (or “f—ing punks”) remark under his breath.”
Yeah, thanks for explaining. I obviously don’t think Zimmerman’s interpretation is reasonable. Black people probably lived in the complex and for that matter, white people know black people and they visit. Suspicion is one thing. Stalking after being advised by the police not to and eventually following, getting into a confrontation with, and shooting is another.

Also, look at that kid. May have seemed different in the dark, but he’s a smiling good-natured looking kid. I don’t think that means he couldn’t have been violent — he was when cornered, provoked, or angered near the end — but I definitely think the world suffered a loss at his shooting.

\’Tell me 843, would your training have you approach and assault a person
who is obviously keeping tabs on you from a distance and is not trying
to approach you?”

It would depend partly on distance. Above a certain range, unarmed, no — escape and evasion would be the order of the day (and apparently this was tried when he ran). Wthin a certain distance, if I feared for my life, I’d close with and dominate my opponent.

I added the bolding now, because it’s important. I might have added at the time, but for technical reasons, can’t use html tags at his site anymore. Lots of people can’t. Movable Type is stupid.

Yes, I’m sure Zimmerman will have his character witnesses as well, it wasn’t intentional, on Zimmerman’s part, it was raining, I know that’s rare in California, but i’m sure it happens in Illinois, and certainly in Florida, that cuts down on visibility, Martin wasn’t familiar to Zimmerman,
because of the circumstances that brought him almost 259 miles from home,

Thank you, Random. There’s nothing a defense attorney can do about it. You hope that the pictures are not all that cute and the relatives are not glib. You don’t cross-examine, no matter how much your client insists.

Well, Mr. Smithee, to be honest some of us are wondering how long Zimmerman will survive in jail or prison even awaiting a trial with the sentiment expressed by the NBPP, or finding a jury that would dare to find him innocent at the risk of riots as have been threatened.

I want to see the truth come out. I think you must admit that virtually all of the early reports had been distorted from the truth to make it look like Z was out looking for a black person in a hoodie to stalk and shoot. I’ve said before that I do not think M planned “a murderous assault” on Z, but he does have a record of multiple suspensions from school and a trail of twitter feeds not expected from a choir-boy.

The information that shipwrecked and others discussed about the layout of the interaction corresponds to Z’s account of his trying to follow where M was, and rather than taking advantage of his youth and athleticism to leave Z behind, M rounded a corner then held back, awaiting Z to come into his sight then approached Z by surprise. Yes, we’re speculating, but from the evidence we have it seems most reasonable that M wanted to “teach this guy a lesson, I don’t like being watched”. However, once Z was on his back and getting his head pounded it was not likely he could think, “OK, this guy is going to rough me up a bit to make a point and let me get up, so I’ll wait it out a bit longer”.

I think this is a tragic outcome resulting from some stupid teenage bravado and good intentions gone awry, not a justified shooting of a murderous thug or a “modern day Emmett Till” at the hands of a white supremacist.

LN Smithee — I normally have quite a lot of agreement for your views. But here we are going to simply disagree. I have said here more than a few times already that Zimmerman’s conduct that night is responsible for the death of Martin. But Zimmerman’s conduct does not, so far as the evidence has been reported, support a criminal charge against him.

To refer specifically to your comment, there is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman was “chasing” Martin. The evidence is that Martin began running at some point away from Zimmerman. ZImmerman then began walking fast or running, but his path was not “chasing” Martin. His path was to a location where he would likely be able to see Martin again, but not necessarily intercept him. Why not? Because Martin had a significant head start on him and the total distance from where he started to where he needed to get to (dad’s girlfriend’s townhouse) was only about 75 yards). He could have covered that entire distance in under 10 seconds, while short fat Zimmerman got out of his car and traveled parallel to Martin on the street in front of the houses, before cutting between two sets of units to the sidewalk where the confrontation ultimately took place.

You have looked very closely at this situation, but I would urge you to look very closely at the overhead of the complex where it took place. That layout suggests one of two things about Martin’s conduct. Either he waited along the path in the dark to see if Zimmerman would appear between the rows of townhouses, or he got almost to his father’s girlfriend’s townhouse and then double-backed 50 yards to the location where hew as shot.

Either way, it makes his conduct much less “innocent” as a kid who was just trying to get away from the strange guy following him.

I agree with your comment in the main, but have to correct you here. Zimmerman had lost weight and was not particularly fat at this point. A bit of a gut, yeah, but nothing like the most widely distributed photo of him. They chose an old photo to make Zimmerman look really big and they chose an old photo to make Martin look really small.

He took a gun where other other people had built streets, and sidewalks, and backyards and front yards that their children could play in. His choice, his right. Let him now survive in his Hobbsian/Lockean world.

If referring to my comments, nk, of course Black Panthers do not equal black people. I do not have first hand experience with prison life other than visiting people a few times in city and county jails, but I assume there is some truth to the idea that there is gang activity and inmate on inmate violence. (I do have some good second hand info from a fellow who spent 7 years in Leavenworth.) Prison is a prime place for Nation of Islam converts from what I understand, not a group likely to be eager to extend the hand of friendship to Z.

re 269
True, nk, but from what (little) I know about it, he took that gun with him into that area wanting to protect the homes (and potentially lives) of the parents and children living there, not with the intent of finding someone to shoot.

“Either he waited along the path in the dark to see if Zimmerman would appear between the rows of townhouses, or he got almost to his father’s girlfriend’s townhouse and then double-backed 50 yards to the location where hew as shot.”

shipwreckedcrew – Looking at the maps and distances involved, hearing Zimmerman’s breathing calm down on the phone, lead me to suspect the above as the most likely scenarios as well. Again, just conjecture.

I only visited the places, myself, MD. I had a client, not very big, and I worried about him. Big and tough are two different things. He told me, “I can take care of myself. Bad sex is better than no sex at all.”

Yes, big and tough are different things, so are brashness and tough. I’ve known several people, including the fellow who had been in Leavenworth, that are as sweet and kind as can be, but get them in a situation where there street reflexes kick in and it’s like a pack of rabid wolves. The fellow in Leavenworth got there because the base CO got loud and intimidating in his face, and the next thing he knew a bunch of soldiers were pulling him off of him. He made a point of fighting the first person who cat-called at him as soon as he could, about 24 hours into his sentence. Another fellow had the nickname of “Ripper, as in Jack the”. Both with as sweet dispositions as could be in a non-threatening setting.

When you listen to the complete Zimmerman 911 call, you hear him calmly talking to the police after almost certainly breaking off pursuit at the police dispatcher’s request … and Zimmerman is told that the police are on their way and he’s asked if he wants to wait for the police … Zimmerman says yes … and then hunts down and corners Martin?

Come on. That doesn’t make a lot of sense, doesn’t follow by what you hear on the tape, and I definitely don’t see how you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Miscellaneous questions that have occurred to me reading the discussion, some rather silly:
Was Zimmerman wearing a retention holster (double or triple retention?) This could be important if there was a struggle for the firearm.
Since Zimmerman turned himself in, can he collect the reward?
Is it possible the prosecutor is playing this for her re-election publicity, not a serious attempt at a conviction? (I know that’s immoral, at the very least.)
Calling 911 and the cops should arrive? Huh? What world do you live in?
I’ve seen confusing reports (and I suspect they’re all irrelevant, as the charges might be modified later): 2nd degree murder only, or are there lesser included charges?

OK, I will say this: after looking at the Wagist link, which is speculative, but speculation based on at least some actual data, if the account there that Martin started to approach the truck, then turned and ran before Zimmerman got out, that does change things a bit. While I think Z still showed poor judgment by getting out of his truck at all, if this incident wasn’t started by him getting out of the truck, then I’m not sure how you could even make involuntary manslaughter stick.

I have seen a report that Martin had been found with a burglary tool and jewelry not belonging to him once before. I have not seen it confirmed. If true it may not be admissible in court but it would change things in a lot of people’s minds.

Ignoring the above, if the fact pattern remains as known then I agree with Random that Z was heroic in his actions and that we need a lot more people like him.

For all you people who can’t post the link to Dan Linehan’s assessment of the incident on Wagist.com too often, here’s what an unimpeachable expert on Linehan’s work has said about some of his writing about the incident:

[P]lays to the worst kind of sensationalism…

… circumstantial evidence [that is] far from damning…

… tells us nothing about Martin’s propensity to violence …

… implied guilt by association…

…offer[s] an imagined narrative as something other than a hypothetical…

Dan finished his first article by selecting from the evidence of the case those things which fit his scenario as Zimmerman as the victim, while omitting other evidence and testimony, including that which served to impeach his sources…

… falls well outside the boundaries of responsible journalism …

… The irresponsible invocation of Martin’s image to support the conjecture that Martin had a threatening demeanor: In Dan’s follow-up article “Misconceptions in the Trayvon Martin Case” (Wagist, March 28, 2012), Dan showed a photo of Martin with the text “Take a look at this picture of Trayvon and decide for yourself whether you would instigate a physical confrontation with him …”

… No matter how solid a case we build, it is simply poor journalism to report a conjecture as an absolute truth …

Now, who is this person who dares question the investigative and journalistic bonafides of the great Dan Linehan?

This may not be an exhaustive list of the problems in the preceding Wagist articles … A tragedy, particularly one that is racially charged, and has captured the attention of the nation, should have been handled with a degree of neutrality that was not displayed here.

Looks like MSNBC has some company in the battle to provide the most unfair and unbalanced coverage, huh?

There is interesting info on that site about an earlier incident that did not directly involve Z but that he was outspoken about, against some of the PD. The more one sees of Z the more he looks like a guy who just wants to stand up and do the right thing in his community and has no hesitation to speak to people because he has nothing to hide (other than his hide, in the wrong venue).

It’s not something you hear often, but former prosecutor Wendy Murphy told “Today” this morning that she thinks Casey Anthony will be acquitted. Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee.

“I was hopeful there was evidence in this case that we hadn’t heard about over the past several years,” Murphy told Meredith Vieira. Murphy talked about the prosecution’s opening statement.

“I didn’t hear any evidence at all that they have that Casey Anthony actually killed her child,” Murphy said. “There’s plenty that she lied. Plenty she was a bad mother. Plenty she probably participated in burying the body, maybe even covering up the crime. But I didn’t hear one thing that put Casey Anthony at the murder scene.”

For all you people who can’t post the link to Dan Linehan’s assessment of the incident on Wagist.com too often, here’s what an unimpeachable expert on Linehan’s work has said about some of his writing about the incident:

Thanks for the ad hominem, L.N. Smithee. I have no idea who the guy is, I don’t care, and I don’t give him any credibility whatsoever. Now do this:

When you listen to the complete Zimmerman 911 call, you hear him calmly talking to the police after almost certainly breaking off pursuit at the police dispatcher’s request … and Zimmerman is told that the police are on their way and he’s asked if he wants to wait for the police … Zimmerman says yes … and then hunts down and corners Martin?

Come on. That doesn’t make a lot of sense, doesn’t follow by what you hear on the tape, and I definitely don’t see how you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

the wagist link gives a clear view of the actual place of the events correlated with the time sequence.

I did not see the editor in chief make any comment questioning the information related to the apparent truth that M had plenty of time to make it to his destination and stay there, rather than put himself in a place to confront Z. There is nothing to suggest that Z initiated “chasing” M which gave M a reason to feel threatened and cornered. This was not Z getting out of his car to confront someone, but Z getting out of his car to follow someone fleeing, to see where they went.

One suspects that things like this [please click link] are the reasons for this:

The affidavit is argumentative, it’s conclusory, and it lacks attribution.

An affidavit shows proper attribution when it explains how the affiant knows each piece of information in the affidavit. That doesn’t mean that a proper affidavit can’t be based on second-hand or even third-hand or fourth-hand information — it can. But a proper affidavit must explain how each link in the chain gained the information — how everyone knew what they knew — so that the judge can make an intelligent assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence.

For example, a properly attributed affidavit might say “On April 13, 2012, I spoke with Officer Smith, one of the other officers on the case. Officer Smith told me the following: a few hours before he spoke with me, he interviewed witness Jane Doe. Ms. Doe told Officer Smith that she was walking down Main Street when she saw a man she recognized from the neighborhood as Dastardly Dan running out of the bank.”

By contrast, a bad affidavit would say “Witnesses indicated that Dastardly Dan was seen running out of the bank.” An even worse one says “Dastardly Dan ran out of the bank,” and offers nothing to indicate the basis for knowledge.

To voluble at 292-
He was reportedly suspended from school on one occasion for having women’s jewelry in his backpack and a screwdriver “which was thought of as a burglary tool”
So, not sure what that would do for a trial, it is basically the opinion of school officials not the result of a legal investigation. Obviously a screwdriver could be used “as a burglary tool” to pry open lockers.

I think the argument would be:
M is sauntering along, minding his own business, then this unknown guy gets out of a truck and starts coming toward him. M is frightened as to what this is about, and takes off, then further frightened to find this guy chasing him.
is much different than:
M is hanging around, “looking suspicious”, as he walks by Z’s truck, he takes off running, as if to communicate, “Oh, s***! That guy is watching me”, and then Z gets out to try to see where the guy is headed to.

In the first case it looks like Z is the initiator of the conflict, in the second case it looks as if Z is simply trying to observe what M is up to.

Thanks for the ad hominem, L.N. Smithee. I have no idea who the guy is, I don’t care, and I don’t give him any credibility whatsoever.
Comment by Random — 4/13/2012 @ 8:31 pm

You know why you don’t, Random? You’re like Dan Linehan, according to “the guy.”

Dan finished his first article by selecting from the evidence of the case those things which fit his scenario as Zimmerman as the victim, while omitting other evidence and testimony, including that which served to impeach his sources…

Since you don’t like to read things that complicate YOUR scenarios — as evidenced by the fact you didn’t even finish my comment — I’m going to spoil it for you. “The guy” is Joshua Vogel, Linehan’s editor-in-chief at Wagist.com.

Since you don’t like to read things that complicate YOUR scenarios — as evidenced by the fact you didn’t even finish my comment — I’m going to spoil it for you. “The guy” is Joshua Vogel, Linehan’s editor-in-chief at Wagist.com.

Thanks for the appeal to authority, L.N. Smithee. I have no idea who the guy is, I don’t care, and I don’t give him any credibility whatsoever. Now do this:

When you listen to the complete Zimmerman 911 call, you hear him calmly talking to the police after almost certainly breaking off pursuit at the police dispatcher’s request … and Zimmerman is told that the police are on their way and he’s asked if he wants to wait for the police … Zimmerman says yes … and then hunts down and corners Martin?

Come on. That doesn’t make a lot of sense, doesn’t follow by what you hear on the tape, and I definitely don’t see how you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

My understanding is that the girlfriend first refused to talk to police. There has been little on anything she has said. Some speculate that the special prosecutor brought charges perhaps on the basis of what she has later said, but that’s indeed speculation.

You are correct, DRJ, but in the first case one could say that Z started the pursuit, then M tried to “get away”. It didn’t have to be that way, but it would be easier to argue that Z was the “aggressor”. In the second scenario, Z did nothing but observe from his truck until M “tried to flee”, at which point Z was not being an “aggressor”, but simply trying to maintain visual contact.

At least that’s how I would think of framing it, not that any of that can be definitively proved.

I confess, the place where it occurred seems sort of odd for Zimmerman to be if he gave up pursuit when he might have, which is well before he got to the sidewalk between buildings, and, without being in the location, it seems unlikely that the addresses would be there and not “on the street”.

I think this is the weakest part of the whole case, as you can reasonably ask why Zimmerman was there between the houses. As wagist suggests, what might have happened is that Zimmerman was following, Martin went down the sidewalk between the houses, Zimmerman stopped at E, began to head back to his car, and either went a ways up the sidewalk looking, or, alternately, had Martin call out to him in challenge as he walked past headed back for his car, which led to him proceeding towards Martin rather than continuing back to his car.

And at this point — Zimmerman does have as much right to be there as Martin does, too, which a lot of people seem to fail to consider.

There’s every bit of evidence that this is an instance of too much testosterone gone bad, on both sides. One paid for it with his life, and the other is paying for it in grief — if not directed grief for his actions then in the consequences of his actions.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, the biggest problem I have is that this appears to be one giant cluster-eph from the moment the two crossed paths. At no point does it seem to me that either likely did anything that suggested the final outcome was likely, even assuming Martin was the kind of thug wannabe that there is some evidence of him being.

The media should be using it as a moment to teach people about the danger of escalating confrontations, and instead it’s aggravating racial tensions and increasing the likelihood of many more such confrontations, possibly some of them between mobs — and that is NEVER pretty.

Gaah! Whoever designed the interface of this message forum deserves to have his or her eyes gouged out. Scrolling through dozens and dozens of posts that are not graphically separated — and this is the ONLY forum on the web that I’m aware of that is like this — is like looking through blocks of sentences that lack paragraph breaks.

Gaah! Whoever designed the interface of this message forum deserves to have his or her eyes gouged out. Scrolling through dozens and dozens of posts that are not graphically separated — and this is the ONLY forum on the web that I’m aware of that is like this — is like looking through blocks of sentences that lack paragraph breaks.

It would be so easy for someone to edit Patterico’s theme to include a light gray or light blue shading for alternate comments. Trivially easy, really. He should get someone to do it for him it.

narciso, I don’t think it proves he was a drug dealer. But I think that it, the Twitter account (swinging on the bus driver!), FB account, YouTube videos, school suspension, burglary tools, etc., at a minimum that Trayvon Martin wasn’t the super well-behaved boy his years-younger photo painted him as. We haven’t been given a balanced perspective on him.

But in the case of Zimmerman and his neighbors, we’re dealing with a community that apparently had been hit with several burglaries. Criminal activity that I believe involved mostly, if not only, black suspects.

I’m always interested in the phenomenon of a large number of white liberals in particular — or discerning, upwardly-mobile black folks too — decades since the era of civil rights, being quietly expressing hesitance about moving to predominantly black neighborhoods. I’m fully aware of the greater amount of dysfunction (social and economic) that plagues a large number of mostly black communities throughout the US, and how the leftism that pervades those communities makes a bad situation much worse.

I think that’s one reason why Trayvon-Martin types (ie, a Facebook history that indicates someone is into rowdy “gangsta” culture) know they can stretch the boundaries of decency and run roughshod over their environment.

If Martin had been in possession of stolen property, or contraband, I could see a reason for thinking Trayvon was a disaster waiting to happen. If he was a gang member, or just had an arrest record, ditto. None of that is the case.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 4/13/2012 @ 6:46 pm

Given the rowdy-and-proud-of-it background of Trayvon Martin, your comment makes me think of people who observe disproportionately large numbers of black kids in public schools throughout America being suspended or expelled, who respond by then scratching their head in astonishment, and thinking it’s probably because teachers are too strict, teachers are racist, teachers are short-tempered, teachers aren’t paid enough, teachers aren’t tolerant enough, teachers aren’t understanding enough, teachers aren’t providing very interesting lessons, teachers aren’t compassionate enough, teachers are too rightwing, etc, etc, etc.

It would be so easy for someone to edit Patterico’s theme to include a light gray or light blue shading for alternate comments. Trivially easy, really. He should get someone to do it for him it.

Exactly! Thank you.

Again, I’ve yet to see any other forum or message board anywhere on the Internet that has all its text glommed together, where one posting is pretty much visually fused together with another one. Patterico.com deserves much better than the person (or persons) who designed his blog.

The thing which gets me is that Martin is clearly the faster runner — and not just “faster” but MUCH FASTER. Treyvon could have easily outrun Zimmerman if he had wanted to. So the only plausible reason which explains how the two of them could meet in close proximity is if Treyvon was the one who closed the distance between them.

Which means he’s the aggressor, case closed. And frankly I don’t see how even a bad lawyer couldn’t introduce reasonable doubt and get Zimmerman off.

Again, I’ve yet to see any other forum or message board anywhere on the Internet that has all its text glommed together, where one posting is pretty much visually fused together with another one. Patterico.com deserves much better than the person (or persons) who designed his blog.

I kind of like black on white text, so I’m the odd man out. But I see your point, and if Patterico added pagination (say every 500 comments), I could get behind it. Anyway, why not email the man himself about it, or just send him a link to your last comment? No guarantee he’s even reading these particular comments.

But yeah, what you’re talking about is easy to do. Just adding a comment class if it’s not already there and assigning a CSS background property to that class. Could also apply special shading to Patterico’s comments if he wised.

That part is okay. It’s the lack of any graphic dividing lines (similar to what I always insert above my posts) that, particularly when surfing through dozens of posts at the end of the evening, makes my eyes glaze over.

It doesn’t help dealing with the format of this board when active commenting is over for the moment, or after the time when — as earlier in the day — so many messages are being keyed in, one after another, that the user (eg, me) won’t be as bothered by the incomplete graphic interface.
___________________________________________

Before the dispatcher told Zimmerman they didn’t need him to follow Trayvon, he said “Just let me know if he does anything else.” Perhaps that’s why Zimmerman started following Trayvon. No one seems to be mentioning that instruction from the dispatcher.

Before the dispatcher told Zimmerman they didn’t need him to follow Trayvon, he said “Just let me know if he does anything else.” Perhaps that’s why Zimmerman started following Trayvon. No one seems to be mentioning that instruction from the dispatcher.

Shhhh.

Get one thing perfectly clear.

You must follow police-dispatcher suggestions. You are not allowed to do what they ask you to do.

The Washington Examiner transcribed Zimmerman’s 911 call here. Read the whole thing if you haven’t already, but here’s the section where the operator tells Zimmerman to report what Martin does and that he doesn’t need to follow anyone:

He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20]

911 dispatcher:

Let me know if he does anything, OK?

Zimmerman:

OK.

911 dispatcher:

We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Zimmerman:

OK.

These assholes. They always get away.

When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse. [1:39]

911 dispatcher:

OK, so it’s on the left hand side of the clubhouse?

Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, ‘F-ing coons’ at 2:22]

NOTE:
[Listen here at 1:17 for CNN’s edited frame]
[Read CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin’s explanation of why the use of a racial slur is critical in this case.]

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

Regarding the operator’s “let me know if he does anything” statement, it sounds to me as if the operator wanted to know what Martin was doing because Zimmerman had said “He’s got something in his hands.” At that point, I suspect the operator’s concern wasn’t whether Zimmerman was following Martin, but whether Martin might have a weapon. (My guess is Martin had a cell phone in his hand, but it would be hard to tell what he was holding if it was dark.)

In addition, the “f**ing coons” claim has since been questioned. It’s now thought Zimmerman said either “f**ing punks” or “f**ing cold” (referring to the weather).

Regarding the operator’s “let me know if he does anything” statement, it sounds to me as if the operator wanted to know what Martin was doing because Zimmerman had said “He’s got something in his hands.”

Yeah. Upon reflection, you’re right.

In addition, the “f**ing coons” claim has since been questioned. It’s now thought Zimmerman said either “f**ing punks” or “f**ing cold” (referring to the weather).

It’s also possible that — whatever the operator intended by the instruction to “let me know if he does anything” — Zimmerman interpreted it as an instruction or suggestion that he continue to observe Martin (including following him, if necessary).

But that would’ve required him to disregard the clearer instruction “we don’t need you to do that.”

Except the operator’s statement to “let me know if he does anything” came before the statement that “we don’t need you to do that.” Thus, if Zimmerman followed and observed Martin until the operator said “we don’t need you to do that,” it’s consistent with the assumption that Zimmerman was complying with his understanding of the operator’s instructions/suggestions.

I’m not saying that’s what happened, only that it’s possible that’s what Zimmerman thought.

To me, reading the transcript, it seems obvious that the operator became more interested and concerned when Zimmerman said Martin had something in his hand(s). But that doesn’t mean Zimmerman interpreted the operator’s comment that way. He may have thought the operator was actually interested in what Martin was doing in the area, so Zimmerman may have decided he was being encouraged observe Martin and to report on what Martin was doing.

It could perhaps be construed as a warning or admonition, but it isn’t one with any great force, though he apparently doesn’t resist it.

Comment by SarahW

I’m not an attorney, but isn’t the simplest explanation that the city wanted to make clear, i.e., put it on record that any subsequent actions taken by Mr. Zimmerman were not at the direction of the law enforcement/city agency?

“What happens next? We don’t know, but we observe that in some respects, the meta-story has become the story. The Zimmerman story is not an important national story. The contraception story was never an important national story. What both stories illustrate is just how far in the tank the media are for the White House, that they will resort to anything to advance a political agenda. The open and unapologetic corruption in the media is an important national story.”

Of course, around here that means taking Zimmermans story as fact too.

“He looks like he was in a fight” “He looks like he was attacked”.

Multiple witnesses dispute key details of his story. The fact that 1 witness agrees with a small part of it doesn’t establish it as fact.

But, of course, no one would ever make up a story to justify a self-defense claim.

And its quite frequent for kids without histories of violence and who are running just randomly turn around and decide to double-back and savagely crush the skulls of guys who stop following them. Well, at least thats apparently easy to believe … for some people …. of some kids … with certain appearances…..

In general, I think government-operated 911 systems have governmental immunity for their actions — provided they do not act in a grossly negligent or willful and wanton manner. It could certainly be true that the operator made that suggestion to avoid liability. However, I rode with the police years ago when I was in law school, and even then dispatchers told citizens not to get involved once the police were responding to the scene. It wasn’t a liability issue back then, it was because the police didn’t want to arrive on the scene and have to sort out who was the suspect and who was the complainant. This was especially true at night, and even more so when there might be a weapon involved.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think most people are simply discussing this in theory based on information provided in the media. As the media story shifts, that changes how we look at this. But I definitely don’t think the facts are clear or I “know” what happened.

Libarbarian the type of injuries Zimmerman received are consistent with his story, as are the grass stains on Z’s shirts, and the best witness account – the one who saw Zimmerman on his back yelling for assistance.

There are no other eyewitness accounts that dispute Zimmerman’s account. There is one witness who said the one in the red shirt was yelling, who told police the victim was yelling.

Which is more likely – that she assumed the smaller person getting pounded was the shooting victim? Or that she mistook the gray hoodie for a red shirt?

In follow-up to what DRJ said at 8:09, my position isn’t a hard and fast Zimmerman was right and Martin was wrong (my first reaction was, in fact, the opposite — as I documented up thread). It’s that there is nothing remotely close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman broke a law, especially Murder 2 as defined by Florida. The prosecution’s charging affidavit is abysmal and mostly supports Zimmerman’s version of events anyway.

In addition, the “f**ing coons” claim has since been questioned. It’s now thought Zimmerman said either “f**ing punks” or “f**ing cold” (referring to the weather).

I heard one electronically cleaned-up version of that portion of the recording, and the analyst (who screened out the background noise) said it sounded like “f—-n’ cold.” To go from “coons” to “punks” to “cold” illustrates the capricious nature of sound, or how subjective our sense of hearing can be.

I know another technician analyzed the recording where the sound of Zimmerman and Martin in a fight can be heard in the background. The analyst said the cries of “help me!” were not from Zimmerman but from Martin. That they were from a teenager and not an older man. If correct, that would be far more revealing and crucial, because a true “gansta” probably would be less likely to respond like a “pussy.” It therefore would certainly cast Martin in a very sympathetic light.

Then again, based on the coroner’s report, Martin’s body didn’t show any signs of a physical struggle. Yet Zimmerman was the one who was bruised and suffered from a broken nose. IOW, the expert’s conclusion would be contradictory with the likely scenario. And Zimmerman did say that he shouted for help, but no one came to assist him. So does his voice on a recording possibly sound very youthful or not?

One expert gives a positive (or non-negative impression) of Zimmerman, another one does the opposite. Experts apparently can be fallible, just like the rest of us.

“DRJ, I mean before Zimmerman got out of his car and and did… whatever he did to confront Martin and start this whole horrible ball rolling.

OK, thanks for helping me understand your point. Why does the reason Zimmerman got out of his car matter?”

If you or anyone else is still around, this is an important point IMO because, if I’m on the street at night and I notice some guy in a car slowing down/stopping and checking me out, I’m feeling pretty threatened. If someone gets out of that car, I’m feeling *extremely* threatened. In my view, Zimmerman getting out of that car would have been the first big confrontation in the situation, without which the second confrontation would never have happened. If the version of the story where Martin approaches the truck and then runs (before Z ever got out of the truck) is true, that first escalation didn’t really happen. And at least in my mind, that’s the difference between a possible involuntary manslaughter charge and no charges at all.

I still think getting out of the truck at all was poor judgment, but it’s a far cry from the idea that he got out of the truck and hassled some kid walking down the street. The media malpractice on this story darn well ought to be criminal, though – they’d be deeply ashamed if they had any shame.

Well, at least thats apparently easy to believe … for some people …. of some kids … with certain appearances…..

Comment by libarbarian

I don’t know why it’s so easy for you to believe that this is racism. What basis do you have for that assertion?

That Martin was hitting Zimmerman is already proven. It’s a fact because of the injuries George had. There’s witnesses that at least suggest strongly that George was on the ground, too. And the grass stains on his back seem to show the same. So a lot of what you’re saying is racist to believe is actually difficult to deny.

It’s not proven that Martin attacked George any more than it’s proven that George attacked Martin. But how in the world did a man with a gun, stalking someone, wind up being on the ground and punched in the face? It’s hard for me to work out how he went from cornering and stalking Martin to on the ground being punched.

This is why I find it believable that Martin did in fact follow George and attack him. That seems to be a good way to explain how George got in the position he was in. This is merely a theory I find plausible.

I would think the same no matter what the appearances of these two people were and I don’t understand why you think otherwise.

and who are running just randomly turn around and decide to double-back and savagely crush the skulls of guys who stop following them.

And a socio-political culture in a segment of society that results in, say, a high percentage — a disproportionately high number — of black kids being suspended or expelled from schools throughout the US (including urban schools that are managed by very, very liberal people) therefore shows that a desire to give lots of benefit of the doubt to Treyvon Martin is a very appropriate, touching, humane, sensible and heart-warming, beautiful gesture.

I do appreciate LN Smithee’s point that men like Trayvon are not expendable or acceptable losses.

This is a huge tragedy. Even if George was justified in self defense at the moment he shot Martin, that doesn’t mean there is anything OK about how this unfolded. People who carry guns need to be proactive and contentious. They should shoulder as much burden of avoiding conflict as they reasonably can. I think a duty to retreat is an unreasonable burden, but I’m speaking of a general common sense moral issue rather than a legal issue.

This whole business has shown a deep division getting deeper. But if this country is going to turn around, young men need to assimilate into a culture that is totally different from my understanding of Martin’s behavior. Maybe this is politically incorrect to say, but that’s my view.

Dustin, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher “ok” when she says “you don’t need to”, etc. He stays in the same general location for at least 93 seconds giving the dispatcher information – his personal information, and information about his location he is being asked for.

Bob Owens asked these questions:

After George Zimmerman stopped pursuing Martin, then spent at least 93 seconds in the same location providing more information to the dispatcher, why didn’t Trayvon Martin simply go home? It appears that Martin had plenty of time to get where he was staying even at a walking pace.

Obviously, we don’t and can’t know why Martin didn’t simply go to the home where he was staying.

Instead, according to Zimmerman’s testimony, physical evidence, and all the eyewitness testimony, there was a confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman near where Zimmerman terminated his pursuit.

It’s perfectly consistent with Zimmerman essentially being confronted and sandbagged by Trayvon, who, taking accounts of his girlfriend’s story at face value, has said he is not going to run, the implication being that Trayvon is at least in the beginning inclined to confront Zimmerman.

A large, powerful kid like Trayvon (and there are hints he has “taken swings” at people who displease him before – might believe that his follower now deserves a punching and go give it to him.

Dustin, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher “ok” when she says “you don’t need to”, etc. He stays in the same general location for at least 93 seconds giving the dispatcher information – his personal information, and information about his location he is being asked for.

Interesting observation.

(and there are hints he has “taken swings” at people who displease him before

I forgot about that. Not that you’re out of line, but I don’t like putting Trayvon Martin on trial because he’s no longer around to defend himself. I don’t know if he and his friends were just talking tough online or if he actually engaged in that behavior.

Yep Dustin, Zimmerman does have a demonstrable history of violence and people who know him have said he can lose his temper and becomes uncontrollable, he lost his bouncer gig because of it. And let’s all be honest, someone that’s too violent to be a bouncer should not be doing any neighborhood watch, especially armed. Well, really not at all armed or not.

But beyond just pointing out the idea of cultural assimilation, I find it interesting that it’s rarely noted, if ever noted at all, that an overwhelming percentage of black America is of the left. But is characterizing people in that particular way a major generalization? Yep, but when 90-plus percent of humans in any group or community tends to favor the same whatever (be it politicians, TV shows, food, fashion, etc), that comes close to the generalization of “ice is cold” and “fire is hot.”

I don’t know how you get people to back away from leftist sentiment. If there were a magic elixir to treat that condition, and black America could be transformed from 90-plus percent liberal to 90-plus percent moderate to conservative, the results would be fascinating to behold. Personally, I think it would be a “Eureka!” moment. A long-needed, long-overdue epiphany for an important segment of America’s populace. Of course, folks with all the common sense and honesty of an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson would then become truly resentful, indignant and very depressed.

Whats your reason for thinking that a kid with no history of violence would try to crush someones skull without provocation, and believing this by a guy who shot the kid and has every reason to claim he had to defend himself?

Whats your reason for thinking that a kid with no history of violence would try to crush someones skull without provocation, and believing this by a guy who shot the kid and has every reason to claim he had to defend himself?

BEcause guys who shoot people always tell the truth?

Comment by libarbarian — 4/14/2012 @ 11:41 am

You mean other than swinging on a bus drive, flashing gang signs, umpiring consensual fights, and the eyewitness report corroborated by photographic evidence of banging Zimmerman’s head on the ground?

Zimmerman’s history has been exaggerated in press accounts, (part of a pattern of exaggeration that makes me wonder why the truth isn’t enough).

However, while you may give it as much weight as you choose, it won’t be admissable in court to prove any general propensity, though it could be about poor Trayvon as part of Zimmerman’s defense, and certainly would be if the prosecution tried to present evidence that Trayvon wasn’t aggressive.

And to be fair of course you also will site Zimmerman’s history of (actual) violence?

From a legal standpoint it’s hard to see how Zimmerman’s history is relevant because Zimmerman’s charged with murder. They’re not charging him with starting a fist fight.

Martin’s history seems relevant because the defense is I believe going to claim Martin started a fight. Simply showing Zimmerman might have some propensity for violence doesn’t help the murder charge. It illustrates the weakness of the prosecution charging him with murder instead of manslaughter.

Near the beginning of all this–I thought I remembered a report from an officer on the scene saying the “area” or T.M. smelled of Marijuana–Does any one remember that?

If true (and I have not heard of the results of any drug tests at this time) and T.M. was high, I would guess that he was not making the most rational decisions (and may have been truly lost/confused–Looking inside patio doors until he recognized where he was staying).

Add that, from what I have read so far, that Z. did not show/present the gun before they were on the ground–T.M. did not know that Z. was armed until shortly before the end–And at that point (according to Z.) T.M. saw the gun and said something along the lines “…you are going to die now” (per Z.?).

I don’t think there was a lot of rational thought going on that evening (as it may have involved impaired cognitive function)… And to rationalize the actions of everyone involved may not be possible.

Toxicology will show any use of marijuana. Unless it’s hidden by a technician at the coroner’s, and there’s more than one way to hide it, “without fault” by, e.g., doing a nonquantitative. Or just “losing” it.

Alex, do you have a link for that–Best I can find is the results are still under seal (at least as of a week or two ago). And it can take 6 weeks or more for a full toxicology workup (from what I have read).

By the way, the reason Z. was not tested is that the police can only do that if he was suspected of driving under the influence or they had a warrant–Neither of which was true in this case (as I understand–no lawyer here).

someone that’s too violent to be a bouncer should not be doing any neighborhood watch

That’s an interesting assertion. where was the study done, and what was the procedure?

Toxicology reports on an autopsy typically take 6 weeks or so from my experience (waiting for them, not giving them 😉 ).

Inflammatory rhetoric did not help clarify this situation initially, and it still doesn’t. Nobody has said that Martin intended a “murdeous attack”. What I have said before (conjecture) and will say again, is that M thought he would act tough against someone he thought he could take, especially with a surprise first punch. Unfortunately, he decided to act tough with someone who was armed, and when he had the upper hand Z had no idea if and when M was going to stop the attack, so did what was reasonable when on your back with someone bigger than you in control and beating you up with no one around to assist.

I don’t care if M was on drugs or not, he was a teenage male. They are prone to do stupid things at times, white, black, hispanic, martian (I assume martian teens are like other teens). Usually we are fortunate and don’t get killed or kill someone else, but if enough people do enough dumb things, eventually some tragedies will result.

Once again, if Z never got out of his car this would not have happened, so everyone should always stay in their car and let the neighborhood go to h*** (yes, hyperbole). If M went straight to where he was going at his reasonable pace this would not have happened. If M hadn’t decided to throw the first punch (we have no evidence to the contrary) this would not have happened. If M had thought, “You know, some of these town watch clowns are serious and may carry a firearm, maybe I shouldn’t get smart and act tough on a stranger”.
If Z hadn’t been carrying a gun M would likely be alive, but maybe he woukld be in jail awaiting trial as an adult with Z dead or in a coma.

The original story, based on distortion of the evidence, was that a white man with a gun and a racist attitude pursued and confronted a black youth for no reason other than he was a black youth in a hoodie. Not only that, but the black teen was a sweet choirboy.

As it turns out, about the only thing backed with evidence in that story is that a black teen was shot and killed, and the evidence suggests that the “white” man shot in self defense.

Maybe the prosecutor has additional evidence; whether she does or not, the verdict of the jury of lawyers giving an opinion is she sure started the case with a poor excuse for an affidavit and behavior that made her look a little too chummy with the “victim”s” family.

It’s a tragedy. People could have been responsible in reporting it and allowed the facts to come out and be made clear without first giving distortions which then provoke a disbelieving push-back.

408: That’s an interesting assertion. where was the study done, and what was the procedure?

Very very easy to answer. Look at the case we are discussing, Zimmerman’s life is ruined, Trayvon’s life is over, and every home owner in that community just saw their home become worthless. Clearly, letting a guy who was to violent to bounce walk around as neighborhood watch with a gun didn’t work out to well, for anyone.

Ask me a question, I answer it. Thoughful debate and discussion, welcomed. Just spewing (what you think are) insults, boring. I’ll play for a little, but finally I gotta bail on that stuff, I’m just too old–you know over 13.

Now obviously you got a thing for homos on the internet, I’ll let you work on that, and ignore you further. Unless you want to apologize and discuss the topic at hand. But I think you don’t.

414: sorry, I went away for a bit, and when I got back I had this childish stuff to deal with. They did a drug/alcohol test on Trayvon, but so far nada. I assume the official report is not yet out, sorry for not being clear on that. What I meant to express is that the test was done only on him, and so far, as far as we know, nothing was found. This was in response to speculation he was on drugs at the time. Point being, he was tested, at present the best we no is nada, thus this kind of speculation is at best silly.

Since you say you’re willing to answer any question, I have one: You’ve said several times that “every home owner in that community just saw their home become worthless” or words to that effect. I assume you believe the Martin family will file a wrongful death suit against the subdivision and/or homeowners who were part of the neighborhood watch program.

To prevail, my guess is the Martins will have to prove the homeowners are liable by showing Zimmerman was both authorized to act on their behalf and negligent in the way he acted. We need to know more about Florida law and this subdivision to address the former. As to the latter, it’s possible Zimmerman could be found not guilty of criminal charges and still be civilly liable — O.J. is a good example of that. However, it will be harder to do that if Zimmerman’s self defense claim succeeds.

Drj: good questions. From what I have read it is case law in Florida that if the hoa cannot pay the judgement, then all houses in the hoa are subject to lien. Meaning, no matter what if there is a judgement for Teayvons family, every property owner is going to have to pay, even if it means selling their home (or mortgaging further ) to do so. Thus, no one would buy a house there now, not knowing what will happen. Ive read a number of real estate sites and linked one on this issue (used to be in that game myself).

The hoa (and thus all home owners) will be liable if the Trayvons can show the hoa knew or should have known about Zimmerman. He is listed in hoa newsletters as the guy to contact about neighborhood watch. Further civil cases are much easier to prove, there is no beyond a reasonable doubt standard and you don’t need a unanimous jury.

Finally, I doubt the hoa had negligent death insurance or what ever is similar, and even if they did, I am positive their insurance company is scrambling to find a way not to pay. An armed volunteer probably being enough to get them off the hook, no insurance would allow that. But again, I doubt they had such insurance anyway.

I give the author at EmptyWheel a lot of credit. He does an honest paragraph by paragraph explanation about why the affidavit filed by the prosecutor in Florida is a bogus political document. A very good analysis of its deficiencies, and why on Thurs afternoon when it was first published I said here it was a HORRENDOUS effort by the police.

A large, powerful kid like Trayvon (and there are hints he has “taken swings” at people who displease him before – might believe that his follower now deserves a punching and go give it to him.

Comment by SarahW — 4/14/2012 @ 9:00 am

……

And to be fair of course you also will site Zimmerman’s history of (actual) violence?

Comment by Alex — 4/14/2012 @ 1:27 pm

……

Zimmerman’s history has been exaggerated in press accounts, (part of a pattern of exaggeration that makes me wonder why the truth isn’t enough).

However, while you may give it as much weight as you choose, it won’t be admissable in court to prove any general propensity, though it could be about poor Trayvon as part of Zimmerman’s defense, and certainly would be if the prosecution tried to present evidence that Trayvon wasn’t aggressive.

392: so that fact that facts were exaggerated by a third party makes the original facts irrelevant to you? Um, ok?

Comment by Alex — 4/14/2012 @ 3:52 pm

Hmmm…seems like Alex is making a good point there, Sarah. Even if you want to fall back on the beaten shot-to-death point that there’s been media bias galore about the incident, it doesn’t change the facts about Zimmerman’s past, which includes his having resisted a police officer in two separate incidents (including one “with violence”) and a restraining order against his former fiancee.
What’s your response?

395 Are you nuts?

Comment by SarahW — 4/14/2012 @ 4:47 pm

OHHHHHH! I’m sorry. That’s the wrong answer — that is, if you want the keep the debate above schoolyard level.

George Zimmerman, the Sanford man who shot and killed a Miami Gardens teen in a case that has sparked racial tension, was once part of a messy domestic violence case in Orlando.

In 2005, his ex-fiáncée, hair salon employee Veronica Zuazo, filed for a restraining order against Zimmerman — whom she called “Georgie.”

Zuazo claimed that she saw Zimmerman, her ex, driving near her home in August 2005. She called him and he said “he was just checking up” on her.

After they spoke for an hour at her home, Zuazo claimed she asked him to leave. He grew upset, snatching her cellphone away from her, pushing her, she said. A pushing match ensued and her dog jumped up and bit him on the cheek.

“I freaked out and told him to leave. I ran up the stairs and called 911 as he walked out,” she wrote in her petition for a restraining order.

Zimmerman, in a petition filed the next day, claimed she wanted him to spend the night and that she grew angry when he refused. “She accused me of going to another woman’s house or going to party,” Zimmerman wrote.

Zimmerman, then an All-State insurance salesman, claimed she slapped, clawed and tried to choke him.

In their petitions, both included other allegations of violence.

Zuazo claimed that three years earlier, Zimmerman had attacked her when they were driving to counseling. She claimed she popped her gum in his face, spurring him to call her names and smacking her mouth with his open hand.

In January 2002, she also claimed, Zimmerman got upset because she got home too late. They tussled. He threw her on the bed. She smacked him. Zimmerman left for the night.

For his part, Zimmerman claimed that in November 2002, she attacked him with a baseball bat after she discovered he went to a concert without her.

In the end, an Orange County circuit judge ordered them to stay away from each other for more than a year.

Thanks for reading this. As you say, Sarah, “you may give it as much weight as you choose,” but you can’t un-know it, and pretend no basis exists for belief four-time defendant and police assailant Zimmerman may have a greater propensity for violence than never-arrested Martin.

In your discussion of homeowners’ liability, aren’t you assuming Zimmerman did something criminal or negligent that results in liability? It seems that way since you never identify or analyze Zimmerman’s negligence that would give rise to tort liability.

By the way, the modern version of the Neighborhood Watch program emerged in the 1970s and was in part “spurred by the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese in Queens, New York.” At the time, her neighbors’ perceived indifference to her murder shocked the nation:

The public saw the murder of Genovese as symptomatic of the moral decay and apathy present in New York City and all major cities at that time, and people in general. People felt that, especially in the cities, people were losing the sense of community and willingness to “get involved”. And the murder of Kitty Genovese brought those feelings home to an entire nation. The reality, however, was that far fewer than 38 people witnessed the murder and none of those who did witness it, saw the entire act, only bits and pieces. One positive outcome is that the murder led some neighborhoods to start what later became known as Neighborhood Watch programs.

Genovese was stabbed and raped over a 30 minute period in the courtyard and hallway of her apartment. Her neighbors called police but they were slow to respond, and no neighbor responded to her screams.

I am happy to have any of that challenged or corrected with appropriate reference.

The person George Zimmerman was speaking to on the phone from 7:09:34 to 7:13:41 was a man not a woman.

In addition, it was claimed he used a racial slur referring to the suspect as “a f-ing c**n”, which on review is probably a comment that it is “f-ing cold”, which it was a cold and rainy day for Florida.

The only problem with that is that there’s definitely an “S” at the end of that word, and I don’t know that there’s a dialect where you say “Colds” unless George Zimmerman had had a number of colds recently, which slowed him down.. It sounded to me like “Colts” The prosecutor has now settled on “punks” which is definitely wrong, as it unquesionably begins with a “K” sound.

It could be maybe “Coats” I wasn’t sure about the “L” “Cokes” has been suggested.

“Kids” or “Courts” would have a different vowel than I think I heard. The real word may have meaning to people in and around Sanford, even if it has no meaning to us.

George Zimmerman is reported by his father to have had a broken nose. There should be some medical evidence of that, if true. There was a narrow strip of pavement with grass on both sides.

While a policeman may have written down that George Zimmerman said his head was banged into pavement, he almost certainly didn’t say precisely that, because then they would have been derelict in not sending him or trying to send him to a hospital to be X-rayed. Am I right?

There is some claim made, I don’t know where it comes from, that gunpowder residue was found on Martin, and also that the bullet was fired into him vertically. (consistent with point blank firing from a George Zimmerman laying on the ground with Travon Martin on top of him, with barely enough space for the gun, so the gun is still basically parallel to both of their bodies)

This is the best map I’ve seen yet! It even tells me where the back entrance is, and how far apart the mailboxes are from the Clubb House (whatever that is) and that Zimmerman’s truck is not very close to the mailboxes. And this was already done by March 29!

What is needed is a uniform time line using the telephone company records of all the 911 calls and Martin’s call to his girlfriend.

The only thing we know is Zimmerman’s call (which was not to 911) and approximate police arrival
times.

The fact that the prosecutor’s affidavit does not place the call between the girl and Trayvon Martin after 7:13:41 is strong circumstantial evidence that it did not take place then, nor does she claim here to have overheard any conversation between them.

Now I have my doubts that this call was even made from or to Trayvon’s cell phone number or that she knows him. I have no confidence that the prosecutor checked out little details like that.

Aside: Anyone think a 17 year old former football player couldn’t out distance a much shorter 28 year old?

Well he was out of breath when he tries chasing him at 2:09 into the call till 2:26 and it takes him until 2:39 to fully catch his breath. (7:11:43 to 7:12:00 to 7:12:13) I wasn’t able to really hear any of this myself – the times are from a April 2 post Daily Caller post:

In his call to the police, at about 3 minutes and 25 seconds into the call, that is at about 7:13 pm exactly – less than 4 minutes before Trayvon Martin is fatally shot – Zimmerman is asked at what address he’s parked in front of, and he says: “I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address”

At 7:13:16 the dispatcher suggests that he meet the police at the mailboxes, and Zimmerman agrees, but then, right after, at about 7:13:23 Zimmerman changes his mind and says instead that the police should call him and he’ll tell them where he is.

This is more than a minute after he had stopped chasing after Trayvon Martin. He had lost track of where he is (although possibly he’s still curious and wants to know)

At about 7:13:14 he had told the dispatcher he doesn’t want to give out his whole home address because “I don’t know where this kid is.”

The dispatcher does not change the destination for the police car(s), which is still the first address George Zimmerman gave: 1111 Retreat View Circle, but says he’ll tell them to call him when they are in the area.

A gunshot is fired sometimes before 7:17:11, after a struggle that lasted at least one minute. That is, it began before 7:16:00, and probably a bit earlier. The call ended at 7:13:41, after 4 minutes and 7 seconds.

By the time Officer Timothy Smith arrives at 1111 Retreat View Circle at 7:17:11, and contacts headquarters, there is already a report of shots fired nearby – possibly at 1231 Twin Trees Lane, and he proceeds there. As he proceeds there, he’s told there is somebody laying in the grass between 1221 Twin Trees Lane and 2831 Retreat View Circle.

He finds a man standing, asks him if he had seen the subject who might have been shot and Zimmerman says he shot the subject and Smith disarms him.

When a second policeman arrives, he notices the man laying face down on the grass. Officer Smith tells Officer Ricardo Ayala that he hasn’t taken a look at the man on the ground, or maybe not even spotted him yet, and Officer Ricardo Ayala examines him and attempts to get a response, which is negative.

Then a third policeman arrives and fails to detect a pulse, and they begin CPR.

Could it be considered depraved indifference not to immediately alert the policeman where the wounded man is? That’s about the only way I think the facts could help fit those charges.

While a policeman may have written down that George Zimmerman said his head was banged into pavement, he almost certainly didn’t say precisely that, because then they would have been derelict in not sending him or trying to send him to a hospital to be X-rayed. Am I right?

Not necessarily. Zimmerman had medical assistance from the EMS, but that doesn’t mean he has to go to the hospital or that the ER would even do an xray or CT. (I think it depends on the patient’s symptoms and the apparent severity of the head injury.) Patients can decline being transported to the hospital, such as when they think they aren’t seriously hurt, only to realize later that they need medical assistance.

Where did idea come from that Zimmerman stopped him and questioned him?

I think the main source is what a lawyer for Trayvon’s parents claimed a 16-year girl talking to Trayvon overheard (this is not in the affidavit now. Speaking about being stalked is, but no overheard conversation, and no phone going dead, and no time is given)

According to Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for Trayvon’s parents, Trayvon was on his cellphone with his girlfriend before he was shot, telling her that a man was following him. Trayvon asked, “Why are you following me?” Mr. Crump said the girl told her. The girl then heard a faraway voice ask, “What are you doing around here?” Mr. Crump said. She also said that she heard what sounded like an earpiece to Trayvon’s cellphone falling away before the line went dead.

I think it was being speculated by the Trayvon family attorneys who told this version of events that the phone going dead was the beginning of the fight.

The only times this could have happened are either before or after the call, and I think before is ruled out because Zimmerman never mentioned having spoken to him. After may be ruled out by the time stamp on the call.

She may not have actually talked to him at all that night, of course.

The labeled map here is upside down compared to the other map but has Zimmerman’s home.

Tracy Martin, according to this New York Times story, said he initially got a version from the police like this:

What detectives told Trayvon’s father

Detectives gave Tracy Martin, Trayvon’s father, an account of the events that Mr. Martin finds hard to believe. Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, was told that Trayvon approached Mr. Zimmerman twice. First, he walked up to Mr. Zimmerman’s vehicle and asked why he was following him. Mr. Zimmerman denied following him. Trayvon walked away, and Mr. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. Trayvon then approached him from behind a building and said, “What’s your problem, homie?” Mr. Zimmerman said he did not have a problem, and Trayvon attacked him. Trayvon hit Mr. Zimmerman and pinned him to the ground. Mr. Zimmerman pulled his gun as he was being beat and fired one shot. “You got me,” Trayvon said, falling back.

Now Trayvon did walk up to the vehicle, but he didn’t say anything. Nothing to or from Trayvon was recorded during that call. He got close, stared at him, and then decided to run. Zimmerman did get out of his vehicle, but only because the police dispatcher asked him which was he was running and then he decided not to let him disappear but the dispatcher, hearing all this, asked him if he was following him, and when he said yes told him they didn’t need him to do that and he said OK and he stopped. It then took him 10 seconds or more to repay his oxygen debt.

The account of the second meeting, with a “you got me” exclamation, supposedly uttered by Trayvon Martin as his final words, like I guess some bad guys say in some old movies, seems to be a distorted version of what George Zimmerman told the police. I don’t think they took things down very accurately. Also note the “homie” which is as out of date as “coon.”

The New York Times has two named witnesses as to what transpired after the gunshot. One says Zimmerman was then straddling Travon between his knees. The other says that a bit later, Zimmerman was pacing around. She also says he wasn’t trying to wipe his face or anything. According to police there are differences between her sworn statements and later interviews. It’s impossible to straighten this out without seeing details. I don’t even know what the differences are supposed to be.

You guys are sick. You believe everything this Zimmerman says, and you are attempting to fit “evidence” to fit a narrative. There is a need here for Zimmerman to be innocent until proven guilty, but you ignore Zimmerman declaring Trayvon guilty then executing him. He could have stayed in his car and waited for police to investigate. But of course he couldn’t let the “asshole get away.” I saw one person say Trayvon attacked a bus driver, and his school records were mentioned. NO evidence he attacked ANYONE. All information that came from Stormfront and racist websites. I also read someone say that Georges “injuries” are proven by “evidence.” When that is FALSE. We do not have the report from the EMS, all we have is the second ambulance being turned away because Zimmerman did NOT need it. I also am baffled at how you all are justifying Zimmerman following or bothering Trayvon in ANY way. Black men are free citizens and are legally allowed to walk around innocently. Zimmerman did everything he could on that call to create in the officers mind a reason for there to be a reason to suspect Trayvon. He says Trayvon is on drugs, looking about,grabbing his waistand, going behind houses when there is NO evidence. Then you list Trayvons height and the fact that he played pee wee football which to you equals athletic superhuman negro! Who cares he played football?, its an American pastime. I am 100% sure you would NOT like an armed vigilante stalking YOUR child at night and then shooting him dead. Who is Zimmerman and what right does he have to stop, question, or detain ANYONE? What is wrong with this guy. Hes in his late twenties, he’s married, and he spends his nights playing cop looking for criminal activity? You dig into this CHILD’S email account which shows he was applying to colleges and looking for scholarships to try to prove he’s a thug and totally ignore Zimmermans prior run ins with the law. As a matter of fact the only reason why the fat orange jumpsuit picture was used was because it was a MUGSHOT! Did Trayvon have a mugshot, no he didn’t. In fact in response to media inquiries it was proven he had NO juvenile record, not that it mattered. Then you bring up straw men like the NBPP. When there is no new party at all. No members, and no affiliation with the real panthers. In fact Bobby Seale makes bbq now, I’m not even sure hes politically active. Sean Hannity is the reason why these guys have ANY press at all. Watching his program during the election is how I was made aware of them. He played that same clip of those three old skinny guys everyday.

When you show me evidence Trayvon was forced or had a legal justificatio to physically attack Zimmerman, I’ll change my tune. Show me that Zimmerman brandished his weapon instead of Trayvon grabbing the holstered weapon of a man he’s in the process of beating up.

Suspecting Trayvon, reporting him as a suspicious person, following him when he takes off (to see which way he went) are all perfectly legal. Certainly None of those things cause death or injury. None are sufficient provocation to justify knocking Zimmerman down and beating him up.

If Trayvon had no legal justification to hit Zimmerman, then his death is a result of his own aggression. His own crime. At that point he is not innocent any longer if he was in the beginning.

If he was grabbed that weapon, a holstered weapon, and told Zimmerman he was going to die – Zimmerman’s use of lethal force is justified. How could you say otherwise?

Until there is proof Zimmerman did not act in self defense, and so long as all known reports, calls, forensics, and witness statements are consistent with Zimmermans story, Zimmerman must be acquitted.

You guys are sick. You believe everything this Zimmerman says, and you are attempting to fit “evidence” to fit a narrative. There is a need here for Zimmerman to be innocent until proven guilty, but you ignore Zimmerman declaring Trayvon guilty then executing him. He could have stayed in his car and waited for police to investigate. But of course he couldn’t let the “asshole get away.” I saw one person say Trayvon attacked a bus driver, and his school records were mentioned. NO evidence he attacked ANYONE. All information that came from Stormfront and racist websites. I also read someone say that Georges “injuries” are proven by “evidence.” When that is FALSE. We do not have the report from the EMS, all we have is the second ambulance being turned away because Zimmerman did NOT need it. I also am baffled at how you all are justifying Zimmerman following or bothering Trayvon in ANY way. Black men are free citizens and are legally allowed to walk around innocently. Zimmerman did everything he could on that call to create in the officers mind a reason for there to be a reason to suspect Trayvon. He says Trayvon is on drugs, looking about,grabbing his waistand, going behind houses when there is NO evidence. Then you list Trayvons height and the fact that he played pee wee football which to you equals athletic superhuman negro! Who cares he played football?, its an American pastime. I am 100% sure you would NOT like an armed vigilante stalking YOUR child at night and then shooting him dead. Who is Zimmerman and what right does he have to stop, question, or detain ANYONE? What is wrong with this guy. Hes in his late twenties, he’s married, and he spends his nights playing cop looking for criminal activity? You dig into this CHILD’S email account which shows he was applying to colleges and looking for scholarships to try to prove he’s a thug and totally ignore Zimmermans prior run ins with the law. As a matter of fact the only reason why the fat orange jumpsuit picture was used was because it was a MUGSHOT! Did Trayvon have a mugshot, no he didn’t. In fact in response to media inquiries it was proven he had NO juvenile record, not that it mattered. Then you bring up straw men like the NBPP. When there is no new party at all. No members, and no affiliation with the real panthers. In fact Bobby Seale makes bbq now, I’m not even sure hes politically active. Sean Hannity is the reason why these guys have ANY press at all. Watching his program during the election is how I was made aware of them. He played that same clip of those three old skinny guys everyday.

Comment by SFBay — 4/16/2012 @ 2:41 pm

Paragraphs, SFBay. Give them a shot. You’ll come across as less crazy, easier to understand, and less crazy.

Unquestionably imagine that that you stated. Your favourite justification seemed to be at the internet the easiest factor to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while folks think about issues that they plainly do not recognize about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also defined out the entire thing without having side-effects , folks could take a signal. Will probably be again to get more. Thanks

You realize therefore significantly with regards to this matter, made me individually believe it from numerous various angles. Its like men and women are not fascinated unless it’s something to accomplish with Girl gaga! Your personal stuffs outstanding. At all times care for it up!

In general, a gun provides the advantage of being able to strike from a distance and distance equals safety from knives, fists, clubs, and a whole range of weapons which require close proximity for effect.

Consequently, a guy with a gun is ill advised to allow a potential adversary to approach within striking distance. It’s much better to retreat at the approach of a potential threat and maintain the personal safety and overwhelming advantage a gun provides.

Zimmerman didn’t need to close with TraMar, the cops had his location, his description, and were already on the way. It was to TraMar’s advantage to confront Zimmerman up close and personal. Not the other way around.

Comment by ropelight — 4/13/2012 @ 12:46 pm

whoa, if I already wasn’t impressed with Zimmerman’s consistency regarding his account, that right there would have. Thank you!

Zimmerman had no reason to “gun Martin down” because Zimmerman knew the cops were already on their way. Why would he call the cops and then shoot anybody at all? Without provocation?

in general, a gun provides the advantage of being able to strike from a distance and distance equals safety from knives, fists, clubs, and a whole range of weapons which require close proximity for effect.

The first time I read this, I read it as “nun”. Definitely changed the meaning.

hello there and thank you for your information – I have certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical issues using this website, as I experienced to reload the web site lots of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your high quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I’m adding this RSS to my email and could look out for much more of your respective interesting content. Ensure that you update this again soon..

Wonderful put up, very informative. I wonder why the opposite experts of this sector don’t realize this. You must continue your writing. I am confident, you’ve a huge readers’ base already!|What’s Happening i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have found It positively useful and it has aided me out loads. I’m hoping to give a contribution & help different customers like its aided me. Great job.

Undeniably consider that which you stated. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the web the easiest factor to take into account of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while other folks consider issues that they plainly do not understand about. You managed to hit the nail upon the highest and defined out the whole thing with no need side-effects , people could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thank you

Great post. I used to be checking constantly this weblog and I’m inspired! Very helpful information specially the final part I take care of such information a lot. I was seeking this particular info for a very lengthy time. Thanks and best of luck.